In July 2020, when the whole of India is reeling from the covid scare, and even the effects of the nationwide lockdown that our mighty Government suddenly imposed overnight in the mid-March had not yet subsided, we heard the august announcement of a new education policy, markedly different from what had been followed since the exit of the colonial rulers. It was heralded as the first education policy of the 21st century in this world embracing the modern innovations and technological progresses in AI and ML. The announcement was sudden, but was firm in its footprint for its eventual roll out. It was simply awaiting the auspicious moment of the Government seal, which also came within a few days of this public announcement. Though the announcement to some of us might appear a bolt from the blue, the Government made it clear that the draft of the policy had been posted on a web site to gauge public opinion for more than a year, an action heralded as an unprecedented revolutionary step in initiating decision-making process from the grassroots. As a result of which, more than two lakh suggestions and opinions had been collected. Then only, our policy makers had given the final shape and recommendations of this education policy, which was named National Education Policy – 2020, as the year of announcement and acceptance of the policy being 2020.
What was initially a very sudden announcement, gradually became the face of Government’s promotion and campaign. In haste, the Government passed a very crucial policy with far reaching consequences in our society and life, almost without discussion, bypassing the parliament, which had not been running any session due to the Covid restrictions, imposed by the same Government. On July 29, the Union Cabinet cleared the policy without any amendments. There was no institutionalized or organized effort to collect opinions, hold debates and exchange of views not only among the members of the Parliament, but also among the wider stakeholders of the education system, including teachers, researchers, scientists, technologists, industrialists, students, doctors, and many other representatives of different professions and organizations. On the contrary, in the past the Radhakrishnan Commission (1949), Mudaliar Commission (1952), Kothari Commission (1964-66), and a series of committees from 1985 to 1991[1] recommended their education policies only after receiving and reviewing the opinions of educationists, teachers, students, and other stakeholders of various Universities, Institutions, and organizations in the country. From that point of view, the imposition of an education policy throughout this country without these exercises is truly unprecedented in post-independence India!
This does not mean that this education policy is merely the brainchild of a committee formed by the Government. A brief account of the Ministry of Education's efforts in this regard for the past five years is given in their website (https://www.education.gov.in/nep/tf-nep). These initiatives had been started immediately after the formation of the Government of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) under the leadership of Shri Narendra Modi in May 2014. The alliance was led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and as it had absolute majority on its own in the parliament, in reality it had all the say in the Government’s policy making and decisions. Hence, we call this Government the BJP Government. The BJP's politics revolves around Hindutva (an intolerant and conservative interpretation of Hinduism). Their leaders and officials are either direct workers and pracharakas (propagandists) of the Rashtriya Swayang Sevak Sangh (RSS) (a socio-political organization championing Hindu Nationalism in the Indian subcontinent), or influenced by that ideology. The RSS openly advocates establishment of a Hindu Rashtra in India, and opposes ‘secularism’, a fundamental principle to be upheld by our State as declared in our Constitution. People, who are secular and carry modern scientific outlook, are always viewed by the die-hard supporters and members of this organization with suspicion, and they regard them as their opponents. They (leaders, workers and sympathisers of this organization and also of various like minded organizations such as Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, Hindu Surakkha Samiti, etc.) call them pseudo-secular (as if secularism is a utopia, a golden earthen pot, and in the name of secularism what goes on is the minority-appeasement), anti-Indian culture (as if Indian culture is rooted on Hinduism only) , western-oriented (something foreign and influenced by the colonial rule), and Muslim lovers (opposing acknowledgment of contributions of cultural heritage of Islam in India). They especially fear and hate the influence of this intellectual section in society. That is why the axing of the prevailing education system which nurtures these intellectuals, as well as is guided and controlled by them, becomes one of the programs of the BJP government, the political party of the RSS. From the beginning, therefore, the Government was keen to bring about changes in the existing education system and curriculum, and accordingly embarked on a new education policy. A summary of how this national education policy was introduced is given below from the website of the Ministry of Education (MOE).
Chronology of the formulation of the policy
Preparations for formulating a new education policy were initiated in 2015. From the 9th January to the 20th January 2015, a competition was organized through the MyGov portal across the country to select a logo, a slogan and a tagline of the NEP. About 3000 applications were submitted. One of them was selected in each category, and creators of the selected content were awarded with INR 10000/=. In the same year, online discussions on the NEP continued from the 26th January to the 31st October, 2015. About 29218 proposals were submitted. Out of them, 33 themes were identified. Out of these, 20 were about school education, and 13 were about higher education. However, from the available information in the website, it is not clear how and by whom these themes were chosen.
Throughout the year 2015, there are records of such talks. For example, on January 27, the Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development sent a letter in this regard to the education ministers of all States and Union Territories. At that time, the minister was Smriti Irani. Later on February 14, she held a high-level meeting with officials of other central government ministries and departments. Finally, on February 27, a National Education Policy Task Force (NEPTF) was formed with various partners of the education system at the national level, whose main role was to carry out all the discussions on this education policy and to hold regular meetings between the two education departments (School and Higher Education) and report to the Hon'ble Minister. On March 21, she held a meeting with education ministers and officials of education departments all States (provinces) and Union Territories at Vigyan Bhavan. Later on the 6th April also, a similar meeting was held. A procedural directive was then sent to the officials of all these States to take up dialogues at the grassroots, and through a letter on April 25, they were asked to start the process. The survey began in May among the youth in a special category of educational institutions (MGIEP, UNESCO Category-I Institute). The survey was conducted in Delhi, Coimbatore, Pollachi, Kolkata, Pune, Mumbai, Shillong and Kashmir. It has representations from different strata of society, including migrant workers, disabled youths, etc. About 5000 youths participated in this survey. Apart from this, the survey questionnaires were translated into all different provincial languages and sent to all the respective provinces and uploaded on the website. During the month of May-June, repeated requests were sent to the provincial education ministries and departments to conduct the survey and use the web portal. This is followed by discussions on some sensitive topics of the NEP through live chat, radio programmes, etc. On July 2, letters were sent to heads of various universities with a request to hold discussions on these issues in their Institutions. Similarly, members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were also sent a letter in August seeking their views. The gist of all these initiatives is that from July to October in 2015, school-level education-centric survey generated data were collected from the portal of the website from 340 districts of 18 provinces. They cover 110,623 villages of 3250 blocks of our country. Similarly, higher education survey results were collected through representations of 19 provinces covering 2738 blocks of 406 districts. Apart from this, 6 regional meets were organized in September and October (East, West, North, South, Central and North East India). Meetings with various organizations were held between July and November. During the month of November, discussions on various topics on education were conducted by the Ministry. Finally, a committee headed by Shri T.S.R. Subrahmanian (1938-2018) was formed to formulate the NEP on the 31st October and then with some modifications at a later stage on the 24th November. The committee submitted a report on the 27th May, 2016. In June, the ministry revised the report and put a draft of the NEP before the members of both houses of parliament. Discussions on the draft were carried on with a few of them until November. But that was the end of it. The Ministry's website does not say what happened to the report and whether it was put before various so-called stakeholders, especially representatives of educational institutions. Seven months later, on the 24th June 2017, another committee was formed. This committee was headed by the former head of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), R. Kasturirangan. At that time, the ministry was reshuffled. Prakash Javedkar replaced Smriti Irani as the Minister of Human Resource Development.
Other members of the second committee for drafting the NEP were Vasudha Kamat (former Vice-Chancellor of SNDT Women's University, Mumbai); Manjul Bhargava, an internationally renowned mathematician and a Professor of the Princeton University, USA; Ram Shankar Kuril, the former Vice-Chancellor of Baba Saheb Ambedkar University of Social Sciences, Madhya Pradesh; T.V. Kattimani, Vice Chancellor of the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University of Amarkantaka, Madhya Pradesh; Krishna Mohan Tripathi, the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Education; Mazhar Asif, Professor of the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi; and M.K. Sridhar, former Karnataka Knowledge Commission Member Secretary, Bangalore. Along with that, a separate drafting committee was formed within the committee. Including Manjul Bhargava, the other outside members of this sub-committee were K. Ramachandran, consultant of National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi; Anurag Behar, CEO of Azim Premji Foundation and Vice-Chancellor of Azim Premji University, Bangalore; and Leena Chandran Wadia of Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai.
This committee held its first meeting on July 11, 2017. After this, the committee held 10 more meetings for about a year, including their last meeting on the 4th June, 2018. The tenure of the committee was extended twice during this period. Then it took about one more year to finalize the draft of the policy document. Discussions and meetings with the Education Minister and some provincial Education Ministers continued during this time. The term limits of the committee were also regularly extended. The last (the fifth time) was on October 31, 2018. The committee held its farewell meeting on the 12th April 2019, and submitted its report on the 31st May of the same year. Prakash Javedkar's ministry also ended at this time. Narendra Modi again formed the government second times on the 30th May 2019. This time Ramesh Nishank Pokhriyal became the minister of that department.
The official website also has a description of how the draft of the NEP was adopted through various levels of discussion after its submission. The draft was put up on the ministry's website and the MyGov portal, and August 15, 2019 was the deadline for citizens to submit comments. It was translated into 21 provincial languages. A meeting was held with the provincial education officials on July 9, 2019 in this regard. From July 31st to August 2nd, discussions were held with Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members from various provinces. It was joined by 29 members from Andhra and Telangana, 34 from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, and 37 from Kerala, Karnataka and Odisha. Discussions were held on August 8 with higher education and technical education officials of various provinces. 45 people joined there. A special session of Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) on the NEP was called on the 21st September. On October 3rd and 4th, two separate committees on school education and higher education were set up to examine the draft. Parliamentary Standing Committee meeting was held on the 7th November. After that, the draft was sent to various offices of 30 ministries in March and April of 2020, and reminders were sent regularly for their comments. The draft was sent to the Prime Minister's Office on July 10 for comments and suggestions. It was finally approved by the Union Cabinet on the 29th July, 2020.
My apology to my readers, if they by this time get tired by going through this lengthy chronology of the formulation of the NEP as per the information available in the Ministry’s website. It appeared quite strange to me that a policy which was formulated for five long years, I was ignorant throughout, though I was a teacher in one of the premier higher educational institutions in this country. Certainly I admit my shortcomings on my personal oversight on this matter of importance. As an informed citizen, it was my duty to go through the draft posted on the Ministry's website. Then I should have put my serious and thoughtful comments there. Suppose I did so, would that have been considered? It is not clear to me, how it would have been compiled in the midst of nearly two lakh comments. There is no details on how these comments were summarized and taken into consideration even in the ministry’s account in their website. But this much I can say that not only I, even the then Director of our organization was not invited to any level of this discussion. As he is my friend, I am lucky enough to verify this fact. It is also understood that higher education institutions like IITs, IISC, AIIMS’s, IIMs, ISI, ISERs etc. remained in the side line in this regard. They were equally treated (or ignored?) like any other Institution and common people of our country. Certainly they had all the time and equal rights to put their observations in the Ministry’s website for the consideration of a learned committee and Government officials. Whatever may be, it appears that according to our bosses in the Government and bureaucracy, this is such an irrefutable document that there was no point in wasting their time with misconceived arguments and worthless intellectual debates. So the Government did not feel any need to listen to voices of the greater stakeholders of this education system. Rather, as soon as it was announced and published, not only the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but, various high-ranking officials, Government-sponsored intellectuals, bureaucrats and media houses began also celebrating and trumpeting the NEP-2020. It has still been going on since then.
In short—
1. In the formulation of the policy, views of the stakeholders are not taken into account. So, it may be said that the undemocratic method is followed in the formulation.
2. Some activities, such as survey, putting the draft of NEP-2020 on the website for public opinion are followed only to make a smokescreen to hide the undemocratic process.
3. It bypassed the much acclaimed, the biggest democratic institution of the world, ‘parliament’ by not placing the draft for discussion.
Why this education policy?
The question may arise why there is a sudden push to reform and change the current education policy. Soon after independence, the new Government under Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) felt the need for a radical change in the colonial education system. The desire for high quality higher education was reflected in the formation of the University Education Commission in 1948. The commission was chaired by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975), who later became the country's second president. That commission was also called the Radhakrishnan Commission. This commission shed light and put forward their proposals on various aspects of the higher education. At the same time, it also considered to bring harmonious changes in the then existing school education and included those suggestions in its report. I discussed the report of the Radhakrishnan Commission and its impact in the education system of post-independence India elsewhere in one of my blogs. In short some of the key outcomes and features of the report are highlighted below.
(i) The key objective of the education system is to make every student a secular, democratic, rational and scientific minded citizen, upholding constitutional values.
(ii) One of the stipulations of this commission was that the Indian state should take an active role in the provision of higher education and allocate necessary funds to make higher education available to meritorious students from all sections of the society. Also, the socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Scheduled Castes and Tribes) should be given separate access to higher education.
(iii) The clear recommendation and warning message of the Commission was that the institutions should be run independently in their own administrative structure. State funding does not mean that educational institutions will be controlled by the central and State governments.
(iv) A democratic environment of free thought and free exchange of views should be maintained in educational institutions. The rights of teachers, non-teaching staff and students to have independent opinion and speech should be protected.
(v) The commission had clear proposals to undertake programs to encourage study and research on Indian literature, culture, religion and philosophy. However, the curriculum was oriented towards the study and research of modern arts, sciences (including social sciences) and technology.
(vi) Based on the recommendations from Radhakrishnan Commission, our higher education system has been reorganized. High-quality national institutes and various research institutes were established in various branches of science, humanities, medicine and technology.
Subsequent education commissions, too, continued endorsing those recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission report and looked into various reforms and changes in the education system. The first of them was formed in 1952 lead by Laxmanswamy Mudaliyar (1887-1974), the then Vice-Chancellor of the Madras University. It was called the Secondary Education Commission. The report of this commission was about School Education and was consistent with the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission. It was aligned with the overarching objectives of education as outlined by the Radhakrishnan Commission and it accommodated all the suggestions made by the Radhakrishnan Commission about school education. The commission submitted its report in June 1953. The next Education Commission was formed in 1964 under the chairmanship of the then UGC Chairman Prof. D.S. Kothari (1906-1993) with the objective of bringing comprehensive reforms in the education system from primary to the higher levels. In 1966, the commission submitted its report. This Commission also adopted the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission, and sought to remove the inadequacies and inconsistencies in the implementation of those recommendations. One of the new proposals of the Kothari Commission was to formulate a policy of state responsibility to provide free and compulsory school education to all children up to the age of 14 years. This commission recommended introduction of 10 years of secondary education along with primary education, 2 years of higher secondary education and 3 years of graduate level education. This structural reform of the commission was implemented in the following years and the curriculum was implemented uniformly throughout the country.
The last education policy before the present NEP-2020, was formulated during 1986-1992, which is known as the National Policy on Education (NPE)-1986/92. The NPE-1986/92 also recognized stages of education from primary to higher levels and their durations as recommended by the Kothari Commission, and adopted the principle of bringing uniformity of these stages and durations throughout the country. Even the State (provincial) education boards accepted this policy. Accordingly, the first five years of ten years of schooling are divided into primary or lower-basic, the middle three years into upper-basic, and the last two years into high school (i.e. secondary) education. This is followed by two years (11th and 12th class) of higher secondary education. In addition to bringing uniformity in the school years, the policy of introducing a minimum compulsory curriculum common to all State boards and giving regional characteristics to the inclusion of special subjects on top of it was also adopted. In this education policy, one of the infrastructural reforms of school education was the establishment of Model schools or Navodaya schools in every district of the country. Programs were also initiated to introduce open schools and distance learning courses in educational infrastructure.
A considerable time did pass since 1992, when the first Modi Government took initiative to review the education policy in 2015. So it was quite natural to form a new committee to review and bring changes in our education policy in keeping with changing socio-economic scenario and technological advancement. But what was not conceived the departure from the fundamental tenets formulated in the report of the Radhakrishnan Commission, what had been followed in the past in framing such a policy document. Hence it was not accidental that the policy document of the NEP-2020 mostly ignored the continuity of earlier educational policies. Although in the preamble it is claimed that, it is a successor to the NPE-1986/92, the detailed sections of the report do not acknowledge such a legacy. So let us rather consider what changed circumstances necessitated the formulation of this kind of apparently self-incarnated education policy. In other words, let us try to understand what kind of socio-economic and political changes have taken place in our country during this period of three decades.
(1) A world enriched by the digital revolution.
During this period, human society ushered in the third wave of industrial revolution owing to the advancement of digital technology. This industrial revolution started in the eighties of the last century, and we saw its mature development in the first decade of this century. The previous industrial revolution, which was called the Second Industrial Revolution, started in the mid-nineteenth century and its mature phase was seen in the second decade of the last century. An industrial revolution greatly affects our social life, and, political and economic activities. The education system is no exception. Our present education system was built on the social life of the second industrial revolution in the post-independence period. But how effective that education system is at the mature stage of the third industrial revolution must be considered. With the advancement of digital technology, online distance learning (ODL) is gradually expanding and it is able to take an effective role. But in the traditional education system, this kind of teaching and learning method has been ignored. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic (Dec., 2019 – March, 2023) we have seen how much technology can play a useful role in this regard. So in a new education policy, online distance education needs to be made more effective. Not only that, the pace of the third industrial revolution has not yet slowed down. The increasing use of AI and its pervasiveness in the society are likely to super-accelerate this civilization to another era of industrial revolution. Our education system should also be adapted for our transition to that future society.
(2) The ideology of a 'socialist' and 'welfare' state taking backstage against the onslaught from unrestricted expansion of 'free trade' and ‘free market’ driven by ‘monopoly’ capital.
The Soviet Union collapsed on the 25th December, 1991. Before this, the people of the countries belonging to the East European socialist bloc overthrew the autocratic communist rulers of those countries, and established a capitalist democratic regime. East and West Germany got unified as it was before 1945. On the other hand, some countries, such as Czechoslovakia, got separated. Communist China also gradually became a free market capitalist economy, the process which started from the early 1980s. As this unabashed victory march of capitalism continued almost without any resistance from the people and the rulers of the developing and underdeveloped countries, the state control over the international and foreign capital has been gradually decreasing. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and various international trade alliances have enforced the freedom of movement of capital in the world of 'free trade'. Western democracies have gradually joined the process of transitioning from 'welfare' states to 'free trade' states. There the state funding has been progressively getting reduced on providing the essential services of people's life like education, health, transport, drinking water, livelihood resources, etc. Our country is also affected by that process. In the education system, especially higher education, state funding continues to decline; At the same time commercial educational institutions have been expanding and flourishing. Government institutions are also brought under increasing pressure to adopt free market policies on earning their own resources and compete in the education market. In this situation, the post-independence education policy that has been in place until recent times, has become outdated. Because one of the conditions of the Radhakrishnan Commission was that the state should drive the expansion of higher education and provide necessary funding. That is why there is a need for a new education policy that champions the commercialization of education, in particular higher education.
(3) The spread and political success of Hindu nationalism in India.
Radical Hinduism has been becoming increasingly strong in Indian politics centering around the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. In 1996, the BJP lead by Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1924-2008) formed the first Government with the support of some other political parties. But that Government lasted only 13 days. After that in 1998 they formed a coalition Government for the second time. It lasts for 13 months. But in the next election in 1999, their Government was formed for the third time. It completed its full five year term. But, in 2004 the Indian National Congress lead alliance (United Progressive Alliance (UPA)) defeated them. That Government completed two consecutive full terms. In 2014, the BJP again formed the Government under the leadership of Narendra Modi. They returned to power in 2019. In both these Governments the BJP had an absolute majority. At the time of this writing, the election season is underway and various public and private media outlets are predicting their return[2].
The BJP Government with an absolute majority in 2014 was much more confident than its previous Government during 1999-2004. The Government became more and more bold and proactive in spreading the ideology and programs cherished by the RSS at all levels of the country. That was the primary reason and objectives to formulate a new education policy with a marked departure from existing practice and curriculum in education. It requires to change the curriculum at every level of education to accommodate the narratives and theories in alignment with the Hindutva ideology of RSS. One of its key components is to inculcate the idea of Hindu Rashtra to every level of education from primary and school education to higher education by actively and consciously deviating from the principle of religious neutrality, a principle which was not only upheld in the education system of post-independence India, but also was strictly followed by the colonial rulers. Thus, the narratives and subject matters of History, Literature, Geography, Science, etc., are to be threaded accordingly. It is needed to transform institutions of higher learning to produce scholars immersed in Hindutva-bad (the ideology of Hindu nationalism).
It may be noted that since the formation of the Modi Government for the first time, the discussion on National Education Policy has been going on within the Government for almost five years. But perhaps that Government was still not sure about the kind of reaction they would receive from the society while forwarding their agenda in a policy document, and moreover whether it would have any negative effect among the electorates. Only when the BJP returned with a massive mandate in the 2019 election, they became confident enough to speedily adopt the policy. This second Modi government was more committed to act on ideas and ideals of the Sangh Parivar.
(4) Centralization of the education system
One aspect of the Hindu nationalist thought is to bring the entire country under the rule of a strong central government. Behind the slogan of 'one nation-one country' the protagonists put forward their agenda of establishing a country of 'one religion (Hinduism) and one language (Hindi)'. Otherwise, these redundant words, which is a self-revealed declaration of the people of this union of states, need not have so much of emphasis that we find from the proponents of Hindutva-bad. Is it not the fact that all the member states belong to this country? Again, any citizen of Indian territory has only one national identity as an Indian. But these words have special connotations in their mindset. To them Indian pluralism is divisive. In their vision, India is a country of a single race and culture, accommodating all other aliens with their variations under a broad framework. So they want Hindi language to be used all over the country and Brahmanical Hinduism to rule the society. They are also against different legal rights for different religious groups and tribes. They see the autonomy of States and the introduction of separate languages and cultures as obstacles to this 'one country - one nation' concept. So they want to undermine the power of constitutionally recognized States and bring them under the central government[3]. They want centralization of all administrative work affecting our public and private life. It is their desire and goal to see provincial organizations functioning under some central organizations. Likewise they want the same education system, same curriculum, same text books, a single educational administration, etc. throughout the country. However, the fulfilment of all these wishes is still hindered by the Indian federal structure and constitutional system. The majority of the education system is still run by State Governments. Hence they need a new education policy which will bring all these independent State education systems under a uniform structure and under a central administration.
A brief summary of the NEP-2020
Let us briefly review what is said in this education policy. This education policy is presented in several sections, namely, Introduction, School Education, Higher Education, Other key areas of focus, and the Implementation of the Education Policy (Making it happen). Let us follow similar sequence of sectional divisions in our discussion. However, in the report, sometimes related issues are discussed in different sections. In our discussion, sometimes we bring them together in a relevant section. We may also note that many of the policy decisions of the NEP-2020 are already in implementation, although they may appear in this discussion as tasks to do.
Foreword
At the outset, the proud and confident declaration of policymakers is that this policy is the first education policy of the 21st century of this world, that is conducive to the progress and growth of our country. This policy not only considers reforming all aspects of the existing education system, but also bringing about a major change in it. It refers to the regulation and administration of the education system in a manner that are essential for India's progress in the 21st century, and are capable of achieving the fourth Sustainable Development Goal declared by the United Nations, i.e. to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030. Along with this, the education system with the implementation of this policy will be capable of recovering and sustaining Indian traditions and values. In this regard, the committee especially mentioned about the glorious education system of ancient India with the world-class institutions at places like Nalanda, Taxila, Vikramsila, Vallabi, etc., where scholars from this subcontinent and abroad used to come to study and do research on various subjects. Scholars like Charaka, Susruta, Aryabhatta, Barahamihir, Bhaskaracharya, Brahmagupta, Chanakya, Chakrapani Datta, Madhava, Panini, Patanjali, Nagarjuna, Gautama, Pingala, Shankardeva, Maitreyi, Gargi, and Thiruvalluvar emerged from the ancient Indian educational system. They contributed greatly to the knowledge system of human civilization, namely in mathematics, astronomy, metallurgy, medicine and surgery, civil engineering, carpentry, shipbuilding and navigation, yoga, fine arts, chess, etc. Indian literature and philosophy did influence other civilizations of the world. That is why such an education system in this country should be developed, which will nurture and retain the noble heritage of Indian art, literature and philosophy. Applying and nurturing ancient knowledge in the context of modern society is one of the goals of this education system.
The committee recognizes that teachers have an important role to play in implementing the education policy. Therefore restoration of their social status is one of the objectives of this education policy. This education policy seeks to empower teachers, as par their professional competence. It therefore seeks to establish a system where only the best and brightest will take up and engage in teaching as a profession. It is needed to uphold their standard of living, respect, dignity, and freedom. At the same time, the teachers are to be subjected to regular quality check and scrutiny on their performances.
Since education is one of the tools to overcome social inequality, providing equal opportunity and access to quality education to people from socio-economic weaker sections, is also one of the goals of this education policy.
With some of the above objectives in mind, this report outlines the principles of formulation of this education policy. They are as follows –
(1) The purpose of the education system is to produce good citizens, who are capable of rational thoughts and action, compassionate and kind, courageous and tolerant, scientific minded and creative, and morally and ethically strong. The committee also kept a list of these moral, humanitarian and constitutional values, namely, compassion, respect for others, cleanliness, politeness, democratic spirit, spirit of service, attitude to protect public property, pluralism, equality and justice.
(2) The quality control framework for education shall be light but tight to maintain integrity, transparency, and judicious use of funds and other resources in the management of the system. In view of these, It is required to carry out regular audits, and public reporting of outcomes of Educational Institutes for maintaining accountability and transparency.
(3) Institutions should be empowered with self-governance, efficient administration and independent decision-making to encourage innovation and out-of-the-box thinking in the education system.
Finally, the committee concluded that the proposed NEP envisages the development of a quality education system infused with the Indian ethos that will transform the country from 'India' to 'Bharat', a country of an equitable society, and rich in epistemology. In this way, India will become a global superpower.
School Education Policy
Pedagogical and curricular structure
School education is officially proposed to start at an earlier age. Earlier the starting age of education was fixed at 6 years, when a child takes admission in the Grade I, though there were options of admitting kids less than 6 years old in kindergartens or nursery grades. The NEP proposes to start it from the age of 3 years. The first 3 years of the 5 years of child education are effectively for the nursery education as it was in the past, but this is made compulsory for all the children in the NEP. This is followed by 2 years of education in the first and second grades. In the policy document, the nursery education is named Early Child Care Education (ECCE)[4] / Pre-school / Anganwadi. After this, the education in the first and second grades is treated as of primary level. Together they are mentioned as of foundational stage. Then 3 years of child education of the preparatory stage from the third to the fifth grades. Next sixth to eighth grades are at the middle stage, and ninth to twelfth grades belong to the secondary stage, that is covered in two phases namely the first phase from the 9th to 10th grades and the second stage[5] for the remaining two years. If we look at the proposed stages compared to the past stages of education, almost everything else is similar in the past, except pre-school childcare education. Even the class 10th and 12th board examinations continue as before, but the examinations are to be held twice a year. The committee hoped that this will reduce the stress of the students. It is also proposed to further reduce the difficulty levels of examination papers. Along with this, the committee also proposed to shorten and simplify the syllabus. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is entrusted with the responsibility of formulating appropriate syllabi for different grades and levels. It will develop a National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE). The Provincial Councils, State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) will prepare textbooks in regional languages reflecting regional characteristics in consultation with the NCERT. Here too we note that the tasks on composition of text books are to be brought under the scanner of a central agency.
Curriculum, and teaching methods
The committee made various suggestions regarding the choice of subjects, design of their syllabi, and teaching methods of the curriculum. Education should be conducive to holistic and analytical thinking. That is why education should be imparted by engaging students in other creative activities outside academics rather than overloading them with plethora of bookish information and topics. So the committee recommends to adopt innovative teaching methods to make study enjoyable or interesting for the students from grade VI to VIII, like engaging them in vocational subjects such as, metal work, carpentry, electric work, gardening, pottery making, etc. The report apparently claims that all these recommendations are for introducing a new program under a 'revolutionary' education policy. But co-curricular activities are not something new to our school education. When I was studying in school (1972-78) we had typically a co-curricular compulsory subject, named ‘Work Education’ in our curriculum of secondary board of education in grades IX and X. Even in lower classes from grade V to VIII too, we had various other co-curricular classes such as music, painting, crafts (like cotton spinning using a Takli), sports, moral stories (where mainly epics, Mythology, Jataka stories, stories of great men etc. were taught), library work, etc. Besides work education, in the school board curriculum, there was a subject named physical education in our ninth and tenth grade curriculum. In those two years, in our school we had hands-on sessions on smithy (iron-work), carpentry, wood-work using a lathe machine, etc. In physical education, training and participation in yoga, football, volleyball, table tennis, etc., were arranged. Apart from this, various programs were organized throughout the year, including the school's annual program, where students used to participate in music, recitation, drama, etc. under the guidance and mentoring of our teachers. Teachers used to attend there. Annual sports competitions were held in the school. Our participations in external events and competitions like sports, quiz, science fair, cultural activities etc. at block, district and state levels from the school were encouraged and participants were trained and guided by our teachers. Our school had a branch of National Cadet Corpse (NCC). Under that program, we attended annual training camps and participated in public events such as celebrating independence day and republic day. But in the policy document, all such similar activities and ‘fun’ parts of education are presented as if something new and revolutionary measures are being introduced in our education system. It may happen that with the gap of these four decades, our poor schools have somehow been transformed into prison camps of students and teachers, and we are reinventing the wheels of experiential and fun based learning by this self-incarnated narration, what had been championed by our great predecessors such as Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Zakir Hussain, Sarvapelli Radha Krishnan and many other personalities of our country.
The NEP-2020 proposes that ancient knowledge of India should be introduced in the school curriculum. There should also be a place for tribal and indigenous traditional knowledge. Mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, yoga, architecture, medicine, agriculture, engineering, language, literature, sports, etc., are mentioned as examples of different branches of this ancient knowledge, and all of them together are referred to as Indian Knowledge System (IKS). Even its subject matter and influence in administration, politics and environmental conservation should also be part of the curriculum. A comprehensive course on IKS will be offered as elective to the students of secondary schools. This education will inculcate traditional Indian values as well as constitutional values among the students. A long list of these values has been given for illustrations by the committee, such as seva (service), ahimsa (non-violence), swachhata (transparency), satya (truth), nishkam kamma (selfless work), shanti (peace), sacrifice, tolerance, diversity, pluralism, fairness, gender sensitivity, respect for elders, respect for people from all walks of life regardless their background, respect for environment, helpfulness, courtsey, patience, forgiveness, empathy, kindness, patriotism, democratic outlook, integrity, responsibility, justice, freedom, equality and fraternity. Notable here is the absence of dharma-nirapekhsata (secularism) from this long list. It is surely one of the key principles upheld by our constitution. But the committee ignored it. Scientific mindset is not in the list either. Perhaps the committee's bias is towards the spiritual appeal of ancient wisdom in forming values. One of the undeclared objectives of this educational policy is to influence a child’s mind with unscientific thoughts and facts under the shades of IKS, and to embed the ideology of narrow Hinduism in the very early stage of a child’s development. This policy of nurturing unscientific and pseudo-scientific thoughts under various programs of IKS has also been adopted in the higher education. The report emphasises on taking special efforts in disseminating the wealth of knowledge in Sanskrit language and literature at all levels of education. It is noted here that in the implementation of this principle, various Departments and Schools of IKS are being opened in higher education institutions of science and technology, which are getting an institutional seal for the spread of unscientific and narrow Hindutva ideas under various forms in these institutions. For last few years, one such reputed institute had taken initiatives to publish an annual calendar from such a Department, with claims such as, 'Indus Civilization is part of Vedic Civilization', 'The real source of discovery of modern science is found in ancient Vedas like Upanishads' etc. These attempts are not only to sing the glory of ancient India, but also to tarnish the world of modern science with the term 'Western', and stigmatize science-minded people as 'colonial'.
Likewise, on child education the committee has emphasized on moral education from ancient fables and stories. It offers to introduce them to Panchatantra, Jataka, Hitopadesha, and other stories and fables of Indian mythologies and epics. Children should not only know them, but also know their impact on world literature. On the other hand, the committee remained silent on inspiring children with biographies, and stories of the great men and women of human civilization, in particular, those of modern world both from India and abroad. It is also noteworthy that in the past children's texts also included Panchatantra, Jataka, Hitopadesha, etc. We read all these stories in our childhood school books. Yet, the committee had a special emphasis on this matter, and did not care about introducing modern world too them. Another hidden agenda of this education policy is to create a backdrop of blind patriotism and narrow nationalism with an egotist’s mindset of supremacy over all other nations. Likewise, nothing is said here about the history of the struggle against injustice, and formation of a democratic state and society. There is no mention of the French Revolution, no story of the slave revolt of Spartacus, and even the history of our independence is ignored.
While focussing on the matters of today’s world, the NEP-2020 proposes to include various recent topics like AI, Design Thinking, Holistic Health, Organic Life, Environmental Education, Global Citizenship Education (GCED), etc. in the curriculum of school education. The NCERT is entrusted to identify some of these subjects to be part of the curriculum and to equip the students with required skills of the 21st century. Distinction between arts, science, commerce, vocational education etc. will be removed to bring flexibility in the curriculum. Provisions for teaching multiple languages are also accommodated. It adopts the same three-language education policy framed in the constitution. But the states are given the options to choose these three languages in their education system. But at least two of them must be Indian languages. Children should be taught in their mother tongue at least up to the fifth standard. If possible, it should be done up to the eighth grade. This rule is to be applicable in all Government (public) and private schools. Education in mother tongue should be provided as far as possible, even at the secondary level and also in higher education as well.
It is worth noting here that the trilingual policy is to be implemented from the pre-school level onwards. Before the implementation of the NEP-2020, pre-school education started from the age of 4 years in the schools of the Central Board. First two years were for infants. On the other hand, Government schools in States usually have a one-year preschool education system. At that time, though there was a trilingual system of education in the Central Board, two languages were taught in the States, one being the mother tongue and the other being the English. According to the policy of the NEP, children's education in schools starts one year earlier, that is, from the age of 3 years. Whether it will help in the mental development of children, or it becomes a burden, is a matter of debate. There was also an attempt to teach three languages from the very beginning. It is understood that this is a part of the process of teaching Hindi across the country. There is no doubt that the natural choice of the other Indian language will be Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states. Although educators recommend teaching children another language along with their mother tongue from early on, they usually mean to keep the number of languages two. It is quite rare to think about another third language from such an early stage. This is the other hidden agenda of this policy. Through its emphasis on three languages, it desires teaching Hindi from early childhood in non-Hindi speaking provinces.
Assessment
A National Assessment Center (NAC) will be established at the national level to formulate guidelines and procedures for student assessment. It is named PARAKH (Performance Assessment, Review, and Analysis of Knowledge for Holistic Development). The organization will conduct regular national and state level surveys to check the outcome of the education system i.e. the quality of students. A new organization named National Testing Agency (NTA) is formed to conduct university entrance examinations. The agency is entrusted to conduct All India Entrance Test twice a year in Arts-Literature-Science-Commerce-Engineering-Medicine, etc.
It has already been mentioned that the 10th and 12th Grades’ board examinations will continue as before. But they will be conducted twice a year. Although not specified, it is likely that the course of study for that year will follow the semester system. The tests conducted by the school will be only in Grades III, V and VIII. It may be managed by the respective board of school education or any other appropriate body. Assessment of students' mental and physical development, and learning will continue throughout the year in all grades. This assessment will be based on the information collected through questionnaires from teachers, students and parents. Assessment feedback will be given to students to make them aware of their strengths and competencies, areas of interest, and areas that require more attention. This will enable them to choose their future career. That evaluation process may also take the help of an AI software.
Teachers should play a role in identifying and developing talented students. There will be a special emphasis on the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) programs for this purpose. Study circles, and topic centered project clubs, etc. should be formed in schools to encourage and groom gifted students. An atmosphere of collaborative learning and competition for such activities should not only be created in schools, but also at school complexes, in districts and province. Typical examples of subjects on which these study circles may be formed include science, mathematics, chess, music, dance, poetry, literature, etc. Along with these, high quality national summer residential programs for these students may be organized. Olympiads and competitions should be organized at national and international levels, and students’ participations should be encouraged and training should be provided for their participation. Candidates who are successful in these competitions, may avail direct admission in premier institutes of higher education like IITs, NITs etc. Apart from this, various competitions such as online quizzes have to be organized through the internet due to the wide spread of information technology. The committee envisioned that the spread of internet and smart phones in society will facilitate this process.
Training of teachers and their professional upliftment
It has been suggested to take the help of distance learning using information and communication technology to train the primary teachers, and also Anganwadi workers, for providing Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). However, the report does not mention any other separate formal system of training of teachers for primary education in general. It has no reference to the one year basic training programs for developing teachers of primary education which was in operation in the past. Instead of running only separate two year educational training programs for teachers of schools, the committee introduces a specialized four year integrated Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) program, that would be for those who would like to choose teaching as a profession in their career paths. In this program, pedagogy will be given equal importance along with the study of a particular branch of Arts, Science or Commerce (such as Politics, Economics, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc.) at the undergraduate level. Students who clear the board examination of Grade 12, may take admission to this program and at the end, they will be awarded the integrated B.Ed degree (e.g. BSc and B.Ed in Chemistry). This program will run only in the approved Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERU’s). By 2030, a 4-year integrated B.Ed degree will be mandatory for recruitment of teachers.
However, the two-year separate B.Ed program of the past system will also continue. Only graduates in any subject may join this program. And for those who pass 4-year graduation or post-graduation courses, there will be a one-year B.Ed course. These programs will also be conducted only by approved MERU Institutions. Along with this, the committee proposed to close down all types of B.Ed teaching Institutes. Perhaps, the same would be the fate of the existing Basic Training (BT) centers. We already noted that the committee has not made any separate proposal regarding the training of teachers at primary level of education.
The current arrangement of holding Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) will be strengthened for recruitment of teachers. This examination will be conducted regularly for the recruitment of teachers at all levels. Its curriculum will be made more relevant and focused on teaching methods. Arrangements will be made to provide various facilities for teachers in rural areas. One of them would be to arrange their accommodation near school premises. The results of both TET and NTA examinations will be considered for the selection of teachers of any subject.
Special training will be provided to teachers to improve their careers, and they are expected to participate in at least 50 hours of continuous professional development (CPD) program in a year. A similar program will be adopted for administrators, such as school principals and school complex leaders. There will be opportunities to reward good teachers by providing special salary packages and increments. There will be promotion opportunities and arrangements from engaging them from lower to higher levels of administration. The National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) is to be published by 2022[6] to develop a specific standard for the teaching profession at the national level.
Infrastructure
In order to achieve infrastructure development, the committee emphasized on private rather than Government initiatives. For the proposed new government-run pre-school child education, it calls for the use of existing resources such as Anganwadis and Ashramshalas (in tribal-dominated areas), etc. Good wills have been expressed to restore the reputation of Government run education institutions. This 'wish' list includes building high-quality schools, providing housing for students, especially female students, and improving the infrastructure of existing schools. But there is no specific new action proposed for their accomplishment other than strengthening some of the existing programs such as building free boarding facilities and quality schools for boys and girls Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and Kasturba Gandhi Valika Vidyalayas, respectively, etc. However, we have to see how government initiatives and plans are taken in this regard at the next stage. It is also proposed to constitute a ‘Gender Inclusion Fund’ for providing quality education to girls and transgender children. Alternate form of education institutions run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local civic societies have also been highlighted in the report to creatively educate out-of-school students. Along with this, specially trained teachers, social workers and psychologists are employed in these schools to provide education to disabled children and students. It is also proposed to declare a few regions of large population ‘Special Education Zones’ (SEZs) for putting concerted efforts in implementing all the Government schemes of school education of children of Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDG) .
The committee has come up with another idea to reform the infrastructure of school education. That is to build a School Complex or Clusters. This school complex would consist of a set of schools offering education at different stages, namely pre-school (ECCE), foundational, preparatory, middle, and secondary. This would establish an integrated and mutually dependent ecosystem among them. A school complex will have Anganwadis and primary schools within a distance of five to ten kilometers centering around a secondary school, which will act as the hub of the complex. As a result, they will be able to share infrastructure of each other. This was also the proposal of the Kothari Commission. But it was not implemented. The committee also proposed to build an administrative structure for the School Complex. An autonomous administration should be developed as far as possible with the help of District School Education Officer and Block School Education Officer. There should be a short term and long term plan for these school complexes. Likewise every school should have also a short term and long term development plan.
The committee stressed on expanding School education for the students of SEDGs in various ways. They suggested to develop a blending of traditional and non-traditional educational system. Activities of Open and Distance Learning (ODL), National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and similar provincial organizations should also be strengthened and made more effective. Curriculum and its evaluation equivalent to the different levels of formal education (such as examination and awarding of degrees equivalent to examinations taken in Grades III, V, VIII, X and XII) should be built into the system. The program should be made available in regional languages in all provinces by State Institute of Open Schooling (SIOS). Likewise, adult education should also be expanded.
It has been suggested to construct a Bal-bhavan (a center or gymnasium for educational recreation, creativity, sports and entertainment for children) in every state, where children would participate in various activities related to culture, sports and future career. It has been suggested to develop this type of center in every School Complex.
Evaluation and accreditation of schools
According to the committee, the existing regulatory bodies of educational institutions have failed to play their roles properly. They have not stopped the commercialization of education, nor have they encouraged public-private joint ventures towards social welfare. Rather, their attitude has been grossly negative toward these joint ventures. The committee therefore proposed setting up of the State School Standards Authority (SSSA) as a new regulatory body under the Directorate of School Education (DSE). Along with this, the SCERT of a State with the help of the NCERT will prepare School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) on various issues related to school education and curriculum. Public and private schools other than schools managed and aided by the Central Government will be assessed under the same criteria, benchmarks and processes for accreditation. For Central Government schools the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will prepare a framework of assessment in consultation with the Ministry of Education (then MHRD). A sample based National Achievement Survey (NAS) will be conducted regularly for a periodic ‘health check-up’ of institutions. The survey will be conducted by the proposed National Assessment Centre, PARAKH.
Higher Education Policy
One of the key objectives of higher education is said to be the holistic development of an individual. Through this education, a person would grow with a character, morally strong and respectful to the constitutional values; a character with intellectual and scientific mindset, creativity, spirit of service, and skills of the 21st century across various disciplines of Science, Social Science, Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Law, Medicine, etc. But the obstacles identified to reach that goal are as follows:
(1) There is a lack of emphasis on developing comprehension and analytical skills.
(2) There are very few institutions of higher learning where education is imparted in regional languages.
(3) There is insufficient number of teachers and limited autonomy.
(4) There are few opportunities for improving the career of teachers and administrators based on merits and professional skills.
(5) Most universities and colleges have no emphasis on research, and
(6) A competitive environment has not been developed in the process of peer reviewing of research proposals and approving grant thereafter.
Let us briefly discuss various recommendations made by the Committee to overcome all these limitations and shortcomings.
Developing a system centered on large and multifaceted higher education institutions
A higher education system centering on a large and versatile Multidisciplinary Education and Research University (MERU) and its affiliated colleges is to be developed. Let us briefly refer to such an Institution as a 'Multipurpose University'. Such high quality universities will be established in every district, and they will provide education in regional languages. There will be two types of universities - (a) Teaching intensive, and (b) Research intensive. Autonomous degree-granting colleges may also be as large as these large and versatile universities. But they will only run undergraduate academic programmes. According to the committee, gradually all single discipline oriented higher education institutions will become multidisciplinary and large. Even technology institutes like IITs are to become multi-faceted, so they also offer academic programs in literature and arts. The committee's wish list includes the establishment of many more IITs, IIMs and other high quality educational institutions and their diversification.
Creating flexible and interdisciplinary curricula
Undergraduate programs will be made more interdisciplinary, as it has been found that combining subjects in Arts and Humanities with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) makes a program more flexible. The human resources produced by this kind of education system are expected to be much more efficient and effective. Emphasis should be placed on inculcating values in the curriculum. The list of those values include humanity, morality, constitutional values, universal human values of truth, satya (truth), dharma (religion), peace, love, non-violence, scientific consciousness, civic values, and life saving skills. Vocational training, and participation in social service oriented projects are to be part of this comprehensive education program. Here too, we may note the marked absence of secularism and tolerance of other religions in this list. Though there is a mention of constitutional value, it is not clear what are those values, the committee refers to.
Undergraduate level education will be three or four years. An academic program will offer certificates, diplomas and degrees at multiple levels. Students will have the opportunity to complete their education by choosing any one of these levels. For example, a one-year apprenticeship may be completed with a certificate, a diploma at the end of two years, and a bachelor's degree at the end of three years. There will also be provision for lateral entries of students to these programs at multiple levels. For example a student with a certificate for an academic program may join from the second year of study for completing the remaining part to obtain a diploma or degree.
Department of Education should be set up in all multidisciplinary universities. Previously mentioned graduate level B.Ed program of education and teaching should be launched from this Department. This program should be formed by combining the Departments of Science, Arts, Philosophy, History etc. of a university.
Schools are also advised to use the infrastructure of institutions like ITIs, Polytechnics, etc. to impart vocational education. The graduate level vocational program B. Voc introduced in 2013 will continue. Even other graduate programs will include vocational subjects. Higher education institutions will be allowed to run short-term certificate programs for vocational subject-oriented skill development. In this case, the traditional folk arts and crafts will also be included in formal academic programs. Such training will also be provided through online and distance learning. National Council for the Integration of Vocational Education (NCIVE) has been formed under the Ministry of Education in 2018 for this purpose.
An Academic Bank of Credit (ABC)[7] will be developed using information and communication technology at the national level. If a student clears any subject, a record of that success will be logged in this bank. All the institutions should therefore submit the information of the students' performance to this credit bank. Likewise, while awarding a degree to a student, the institution may automatically verify the certificate of success of any subject required for that degree from this bank. As a result, students may earn degrees by studying from multiple institutions.
Autonomous institutions
Institutions will be autonomous, and teachers will be given more freedom. Independent Boards of Governors (BoGs) of highly educated and qualified persons will be constituted to manage these institutions. The committee hopes that all institutions of higher education will be run as self-governed fully independent bodies within 15 years. The BoG of these institutions will be empowered to take independent policy decisions and actions regarding the recruitment of teachers, their salaries, facilities, etc., without any outside interference. Organizations are required to adopt clear and specific policies of administration, and academic activities. In order to eliminate gender inequality, female students should avail more and more opportunities for higher education. Separate allocation of fund will be made for educating students belonging to the SEDGs. In order to have more people from these groups, the regions in this country, where their population are significantly high, will be declared as special education zones (SEZs). The medium of education in Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) will not only be an Indian language recognized by the constitution, but also a regional language of respective areas. Merit scholarships are to be arranged in Government and private institutions for educating students of these segments of population.
National Research Foundation
A National Research Foundation (NRF) will be established to provide financial assistance and grants to research proposals through a competitive and peer-reviewed evaluation system. This foundation will be run as a separate independent organization without any interference from the Government. Its Board of Governors (BoGs) will be composed of renowned researchers and inventors, and will be appointed for a fixed term. Along with this, existing Government agencies such as, DST, DAE, DBT, ICMR, ICHR, ICAR, and UGC will continue to provide financial support for research, regular surveys and monitoring.
The proliferation of online distance learning
Online Distance Learning (ODL) programs will be introduced by HEIs at various levels of higher education. These programs will be made qualitatively equivalent to classroom teaching. A benchmarking process, guidelines, regulatory norms, and approval processes etc., will be developed to permit such programs in universities at the national level. That every education program be it online or delivered in classrooms, will be upgraded in quality to an international level, has also been added to the wish list of the committee.
Internationalization
In an effort to internationalize the education system, reputed foreign universities, which are among the top 100 institutions in the world ranking, will be allowed to open their campuses in the country. Similarly, renowned institutes like IITs of this country will be allowed to open campuses for imparting education abroad. Various legal reforms will be made in this regard and a set of rules will be formulated on how foreign companies will operate in this country. Apart from this, there will be increasing number of students coming from abroad in Indian educational institutions. Thus the country will regain the ancient title of Vishwa Guru (The master of the world).
Administrative reforms and centralization
The administrative departments for regulating higher education will be streamlined. The four administrative divisions of regulation, approval, funding and standardization of education will be brought under a central body. This central body will be called Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). Under it will be National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC), National Accreditation Council (NAC), Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) and General Education Council (GEC).
Professional regulatory bodies such as Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), Veterinary Council of India (VCI), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) ), Council of Architecture (CoA), etc. will continue to act as Professional Standard Setting Bodies (PSSBs) in their respective fields. Their representatives will participate in the GEC.
Bringing public and private institutions under similar regulatory and funding framework
To prevent commercialization of education, the committee suggested that all HEIs (public and private) should be treated equally as 'not for profit' entities. They will follow the same rules. The income and expenditures of these institutions should be reported transparently to the common people. A common minimum set of guidelines and regulations will be issued at the national level, and are to be followed by both public and private institutions. The National Accreditation Agency (NAC) will judge accreditation and re-accreditation on the criteria of compliance with these guidelines. Philanthropic and public-spirited private organizations will be requested to charge progressive tuition fees. A transparent process will be developed to determine tuition fees of various types of educational institutions including its maximum charge allowed by regulatory bodies, so that their functioning is not disrupted. All these institutions will be given complete freedom to independently determine the prices of various activities under the regulatory framework.
We may take a pause from the narrative of the policy document to understand the implications of establishing the same rules for public and private educational institutions, as discussed above. This does not mean that the prevailing norms of social welfare and public accountability of public institutions will be upheld in private institutions. The reservation system will not be applied in the admission of students or in the appointment of teachers and teaching staff. There is no such explanation in this report. They will not provide the necessary financial assistance to the students who come from socially and economically oppressed sections. They do not have various legal obligations to bring the organization's administration under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, follow the procedures specified by the Government in any purchase or sale, etc. Rather, behind this equality is the idea of making Government institutions, like private institutions, engage themselves in marketing education on an equal footing. As a result, state funding will be gradually reduced in public HEIs, while bureaucratic controls and various restrictions will still continue to throttle their activities. This will further erode the administrative independence of these institutions. Along with this, this principle of apparent equality allows funding of public money to private institutions as well. Thus Government grants for research may also be channelized there. The NRF allows all public and private investments for building resources, and any institution, be it public or private, will also be eligible to receive research funds. All these processes will gradually retrograde today's renowned public educational institutions like IITs, IISc, NIT,s ISI, IIMs, AIIMSs, ISERs, JNU, JU, IIEST etc. in this unequal competition, and pave the ways for their privatization.
Other important matters related to education
The committee highlighted a few other aspects of higher education, and attempted to harmonize them with some of the recommendations discussed above. They recommended to covert Institutions of study of any specialized discipline of professional education into multi-purpose universities by 2030. Thus HEIs in Agriculture, Law, Medicine, Technology, etc. should be made more versatile, thereby enabling holistic and interdisciplinary education. Law schools have been asked to develop programs of teaching in provincial languages along with English. In the same spirit, as HEIs in Technology become more versatile, modern subjects such as AI, big data analysis, machine learning, etc. have to be included in the curriculum of many more academic programs, and are to taught with more depth. In addition, genomics, biotechnology, nano science, neuroscience, etc. and their applications in health science, environment and sustainable living, etc. should be included in academic programs. The knowledge of indigenous and other alternative branches of modern (Allopathic) medical science (collectively called AYUSH) including Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy, Yoga and Naturopathy, Siddha etc. should also be part of the health care education. These branches of medicine should also be developed as separate programs, as well as to be included in the curriculum of modern medicine (allopathy). It should be noted here that even in the current education system, there are education programs like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. and there are also Government institutions for them. These branches of health care are also available in Government hospitals. But the Committee's special emphasis on these branches of medicine, especially Ayurveda, demand more recognition and acceptance of these alternative medicine, thus encouraging the pseudo-scientific thoughts and scepticism of a common man against modern medical science.
A new body will be created under NCERT to outline the curriculum for adult education. Information technology should be used to spread that education and sensitize the elderly. Online media, satellite television, mobile and computer apps etc. should be used there. Adult education centers should be established, and they may be established in public libraries too. Likewise the infrastructure of the district, state and national level supporting institutions will be utilized for the same purpose.
Educational institutions should be careful in designing their programs to promote Indian languages and culture. Various activities should be undertaken to introduce the culture and heritage of the country, such as undertaking various activities on the idea of 'Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat', taking students to travel to 100 selected places in India, etc. The Indian Institute of Translation and Interpretation (IITI) will be established to acquire excellence in translation and interpretation of various books and works. The Sanskrit language will come under the core curriculum of school education, and may be accepted as a language in a trilingual education system. There will also be provision of reading Sanskrit language in higher education. The medium of education should be bilingual i.e. education in English and regional languages. However, the committee has not given any specific outline of how this policy will be implemented in central HEIs. Since students from all over India come to study in these educational institutions, it can be assumed that the committee is making an indirect attempt to introduce Hindi as a second language here as well.
A National Educational Technology Forum (NETF)[8] will be formed to create a platform for sharing ideas and opinions regarding the innovative use of technology. The NRF will place special emphasis on AI research. Universities will offer Master and PhD degrees in interdisciplinary subjects, combining courses in AI with various other majors, e.g. Health Care and AI, Agriculture and AI, Law and AI, etc.
The committee has given importance to the expansion of education using online and digital technology. For this reason, few special initiatives have been suggested. For example, conducting a pilot study for online education, building digital technology infrastructure, providing online education platforms and tools, creating educational content in a digital repository, developing and delivering it to consumers with information technology, taking initiatives to eliminate digital divide, building Virtual Labs, providing training and incentives to teachers in teaching these methods, establishing policies and procedures for online assessment and testing, providing a mix of online and classroom instruction, and establishing standards for online learning. The committee also suggested setting up a separate department under the ministry to implement all these activities of online education.
Plan of implementation
For the implementation of the recommended measures and changes as introduced in the NEP-2020, the committee primarily emphasized on the formation of administrative bodies for spearheading these tasks. We have already seen various recommendations on formation of different bodies with their names, compositions and activities at the Central and State levels. Apart from this, the committee has made a few more recommendations. One of them is to strengthen the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). It will take a greater role in the review and revision of the policy matters, which includes conduction of regular surveys, beyond its customary role of advising on education and examinations. It is proposed to change the name of the Ministry from Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to the Ministry of Education (MOE). It is to be noted that this was the first action taken in the implementation of the NEP-2020. As soon as this education policy was approved by the central government, the MHRD was renamed as the MOE.
For the allocation of funds, the center and states are to allocate 6% of the GDP to the education sector. Special emphasis should be placed on allocation of funds to the urgent issues of policy making. Such as overall expansion of education, availability of reading material, food and nutritional support to students, their safety and welfare, recruitment of adequate number of teachers, and making quality education available to SEDGs, implementation of transparent control mechanism of funds allocation, and utilization through GFR, PFMS and 'Just in Time Release’, so that unutilized funds do not accumulate in educational institutions. It has been suggested to understand the essence and purpose of the policy and give priorities to various issues in phases. Finally, since education is under both the Center and the States, it is mentioned that the Center should play a role in formulating this policy in coordination with the States.
Having taught in a leading institute, I can say from personal experiences that these rules of so called transparent control of allocation and utilization of funds have become extremely painful and counter-productive in running public institutions. Complex rules and restrictions on the use of funds, and bureaucratic red tapes in their enforcement make the timely use of allocated funds extremely difficult, if not impossible. Thus a major chunk of the allocated funds remain unutilized and promptly taken away by the Ministry at the end of a financial year (FY). Along with this, the administrations of all these institutions have been deprived of the flexibility in reappropriation of the allocated funds according to their needs in critical situations. Sometimes, the release of Government grant takes place near the end of a FY. Therefore its planned and proper utilization following all the stipulated rules and regulations may require a magician at the helm of affairs. On top of these, the GSTs, Income Taxes etc. are being collected on the grants and funds earned by the Government institutions on their own initiatives by treating them with in the same league of private commercial institutions. It only reflects the Government’s indifference and apathy on spending money for public education. Not only the Government funding for education and research is declining, but also, the Government goes on collecting taxes in various forms from their independently earned research and education grants. On top of that, the system of taking loans (Higher Education Financial Assistance (HEFA) loan) has been imposed almost compulsorily by reducing the fund-allocation to these institutions. Initially, the government bears the interest on these loans, but after a few years these institutions would have to repay these loans with interests. In this way, arrangements are being made to gradually push these educational institutions in the list of sick public sectors for selling them to private business houses.
Two education policies, two situations and their significance
The 'University Education Commission' or the 'Radhakrishnan Commission' shortly after independence formulated a detailed outline of the integration of higher education as well as school education, which has been followed over the next seven decades. The NEP-2020 draws a very clear line of demarcation from it. I am leaving aside the aspects on reforming the curriculum and teaching methods in keeping with the progress of science and technology. It is quite natural that, these changes are needed and to be accommodated in a new education policy. From that point of view, the education policy of the NPE of 1986/92 also mentioned the use of distance education in keeping with the advancement of digital technology at that time, which rightly gets more prominence in this education policy. However, the NPE Education Policy of 1986/92 still maintained the Radhakrishnan Commission's fundamental tenets on running an education system, but the NEP 2020 does not do so. So let us briefly discuss how these two policy documents differ, and why and under what changing scenario in the socio-economic and political landscape, many fundamental recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission were excluded and altered in the NEP-2020 by the present ruling class of our country.
India was a new country when the Education Policy of 1949 was formulated. Its constitution has not yet been adopted by the Constituent Assembly, but the draft was being discussed. In accordance with that constitution, the goal was set to build an education system for the citizens of a democratic country. At the same time, in the struggle against the opposition of the foreign rulers to the expansion of higher education in the past, there were great aspirations for availing higher education among the educated middle class of the country. Hence, fulfilling their desire and expectation of higher education in keeping with the developed world was also under the consideration of the commission. Thus the fundamental tenets on which the then education policy of this commission rested were as follows –
(1) The country should place equal importance to both school education and higher education, including the education at the primary level. Although the literacy rate then was very low, the development of high-quality higher education was necessary from the beginning to build a democratic country equipped with the modern knowledge in keeping with the advancement of Science and Technology.
(2) The purpose of the education system should be to produce citizens with a mindset enlightened with science, secularism and democracy.
(3) Curriculum of education should be modern and scientific. It should not get trapped in the quagmire of blind faith and pride in ancient Indian knowledge.
(4) The State should take direct responsibility and role for the promotion of higher education, and should provide funds for the same.
(5) Institutions of higher education should be self-governing. The provision of government financial assistance to these Institutes does not mean that their governance would be under the control of the Government. These educational institutions would be run by their own independent administrations consisting of renowned academics, scientists, scholar, their staff, professors and students.
(6) Democratic rights and freedom of expression of teachers and students would be protected. Students will have rights to form unions and run their affairs through them.
(7) Students should be made aware and taught about Indian heritage and culture and should be encouraged to take part in various cultural activities, and to engage in practice and research related to them. This tradition and culture also refers to the Hindustani genre, especially in music-art-literature, which have been developed during the medieval Islamic rule of India as a confluence of different religions and languages in India.
(8) Instead of merely reforming old Educational Institutes, established during the colonial period, new educational institutions should be built with modern teaching methods and research facilities.
(9) Education in the federal framework should be included in the joint list of the Center and the States in the Constitution.
The last item in the above list was not accepted by the Government of India at that time. Education was kept only in the list of states. But later in 1976, this section of the Constitution was amended to include it in the Joint List. Apart from this, all other recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission were accepted then and they were instrumental in shaping our Education system today. Today's famous institutions of India like IITs, AIIMS’s, JNU, NITs, ISERs etc. have been established following these recommendations. Gradually they grew as internationally recognized high quality educational institutions under the management of independent educational administration with relatively little Government control.
The context of the current national education policy, the NEP-2020, is quite different. During this period of seven decades since independence, the Indian state has largely lost its democratic character. Efforts had been made and has still been continuing to stifle politically dissenting voices through various undemocratic laws such as the imposition of Emergency, MISA, ESMA, and the currently enforced UPAA at various levels. Thus the state is becoming increasingly autocratic. People have tried to stop this process by changing Governments in various elections, but it has failed because of the fundamental weakness of the Indian constitutional framework and the Government-oriented and Government-dependent administrative, intelligence and judicial institutions. A large section of the people in India did participate in Communist movements for a long period, and were attracted to the Communism. But when the parties leading these movements formed their own Governments and advocated the same kind of undemocratic activities and free market economy, people became confused and many people turned away from the communist ideology. Communists are now marginalized in Indian politics. With this, the division of religion and caste has become more evident in Indian politics. The politics of Hindi and Hindu supremacy has influenced a large section of the mass. Large and monopolistic capital has been increasingly capturing the major share of the economy. The wealth of the country (Industries in public sector, minerals, mineral oil, land, etc.) and the essential services in our daily life (transportation, telephony, data communication, drinking water, electricity, etc.) are being handed over to these capitalists. The ideology of free trade has been established in this country with the retreat of ideology of socialism and welfare state. In services such as education, health, telecommunication, transport, drinking water, etc., the principle of the nonaccountability of Governments is now almost universally accepted. Private commercial companies are allowed to do business on all such essential services. Along with this, as the RSS narrated Hindutva has become stronger in Indian politics, this big and monopolistic capital extends their overwhelming support to them. As a complement to their patronage, Hindutva forces led by the RSS have also aligned themselves with their interests. However, let me be clear that the growth and dominance of Hindu nationalist politics are independent of the process of looting and commercialization of national assets, resources and services through privatization. So does the transformation of Indian state in a more and more autocratic regime. These processes have been going on independent of growth of Hindu nationalistic ideology under the active support and patronage of big monopoly capital for last few decades. But now these corporate houses find Hindu nationalism as a big help to serve their interests. Thus they are using it as a means to rule the Indian masses, but leading this nation to dire consequences. Under this socio-economic and political context, we need to understand the new tenets of an education policy, championed in the NEP-2020. Let us review these changes with respect to Radhakrishnan Commission's education policy. Many of these, as we clarify here, appear in the NEP's report in somewhat obscured form. Some of the fundamental principles (e.g. secularism) championed by the Radhakrishnan Commission do not find any place in the policy document. Neither they are opposed explicitly. It appears to me this is done very consciously by policy makers. Because they did not dare to oppose those views directly. There is uncertainty in keeping the Government of Hindutva for a long period, as elections are still held with some fairness in this country. The day that too goes away, we shall see strong and loud presence of these counter views in a more explicit form in all official channels and documents. The major deviations from the Radhakrishnan Commission report are as follows.
(1) Silence has been maintained about the necessity of the state funding in the education system, especially in higher education. Along with this, it is mooted to set up new institutions in the PPP (Public Private Partnership) model. From our past experiences, we realize now that so called public and private joint ventures actually pave the way for privatization.
(2) The policy document has maintained complete silence about 'secularism'. The word 'secularism' has no place in the 66-page report. Although there is a reference to the formation of constitutional values, the committee shied away from the responsibility of reflecting the 'secular' character of the state and its education system.
(3) Protection of the democratic rights of teachers and students in educational institutions is also out of bound of this report. On the contrary, the Radhakrishnan Commission had clear suggestions and directions in this regard. In particular, they advocated freedom of expression under any circumstances, and the Commission cautioned against the opposition of authoritarian regimes in this regard. Here are some relevant excerpts from that commission's report on the subject.
“The basic condition of a democratic education system is to recognize the unique role of the individual in social and state activities and to nurture his spontaneous development. This democratic trend and character of modern education, autocrats who do not believe in democracy, do not want to accept. For them, the purpose of education is only to create valuable human resources capable of being exploited according to the needs of the society and the state. Individual development is secondary there. Rather, if a person's individual thoughts go against the ideology of the rulers, they want the destruction of that personality. On the other hand, in a democratic system, the right of each person to flourish in their unique individuality is recognized. One of the roles of education under a democratic government is to guide that development.”
(4) There is a proposal to make the educational institutions self-governing, but the explanation of the actual meaning of that self-governance is missing. It is mentioned only that the institutions will be governed independently by the Board of Governors or BOG. The meaning or condition of this self-governance is presented in such a way that the institutions must be financially self-sufficient. Thus there is no explanation of self-governance of state funded public institutions. While the Radhakrishnan Commission said that the government should bear the cost of HEIs, it also said that it did not mean that the institutions would run under the control of Government ministries, i.e. these institutions would be autonomous in their own administrative structure.
(5) Widespread and almost compulsory dissemination of Indian heritage, culture and Sanskrit language is required at all levels of education. Of course, we need to understand that under the present regime, the Indian traditions and culture here mean the RSS defined Hindu traditions and culture. For example, the 'Hindustani' culture that evolved under the medieval Islamic rulers, has no mention in the document, and markedly kept in the side-line. We may see its proof in the preface of this report, where there is no mention of any Muslim scholar and religious leader in the list of ancient Indian scholars. Amir Khosrow (1253-1325), who was one of the pioneers of the Hindustani genre of music, arts, and literature, is left out. There is no mention of Tansen (1493-1589). Names of famous Sufi saints like Nizamuddin Awliya (1238-1325), and Moinuddin Chishti (1143-1236) do not also have any place. Even medieval religious reformers who profoundly influenced Indian society and culture for both Hindus and Muslims, such as Kabir (1398-1518), Chaitanya Deva (1486-1534), and Nanak (1469-1539), are also markedly absent.
(6) 'Government' and 'Private' institutions have to follow the same rules as recommended by the NEP-2020. In other words, public institutions are asked to manage and run its own affairs without any public funding, and through their own commercial earnings.
(7) All institutions of higher learning should become 'multi-purpose universities'. Even the leading institutes of the country at present, like IITs, NITs, etc., will become such multidisciplinary institutes.
(8) The administrative and educational activities of the country-wide education system will be managed and directed centrally. This means that the current rights of provinces to manage the education system and structure the curriculum on their own will be further curtailed. There the role of state agencies will be only to implement central policies and directives.
In the NEP-2020, the committee has brought forward the concept of 'multi-faceted university' as a means to enrich the higher education and improve its quality. The idea that universities can be versatile is certainly not new. Calcutta University, Jadavpur University, Viswa Bharati, etc. are examples in our state of West Bengal. But the committee's proposal that all HEIs should become multifaceted or MERU appears to me childish and an ‘oversimplified panacea’ as a measure to cure our ailing higher education system! it is quite doubtful how much it will increase the quality and standard of the education system. In this regard, the committee cited examples of institutes like IITs, NITs etc. However, they did not discuss with the teachers and administrators of these institutions even once while writing the report. The committee did not leave any room for thoughts whether this diversification would disrupt the core teaching and research activities of these institutes, thereby weakening their present strength. There is no warning that uncontrolled diversification may be against their ongoing teaching and research. Since these institutions are run by public funds, and in some of them, contradicting the principle of non-interference from the Government machinery as outlined in the Radhakrishnan commission, Directors loyal to their political bosses of the ruling regime presently head these Institutions. Through them the Government is able to impose its preferred curriculum in all these institutions in the name of diversification. For example, very recently, in the name of the implementation of the NEP, the MOE virtually forced some IITs to accept the proposed four-year integrated B.SC-B Ed programs. Despite the lack of adequate infrastructure and teaching staff, these academic programs have been implemented in haste.
Pledges and reality
Like any other document on an education policy, the policy document of the NEP-2020 contains also a plethora of pledges and messages of good intentions and high hopes. It talks about developing students as citizens endowed with qualities such as good people, rational, science minded, democratic spirit etc. It pledges on restoring the professional status of teachers and extending social prestige and various facilities to them. The determination to build high-quality educational institutions has been expressed in many places. Educational institutions have been promised self-governance and independence from bureaucratic control, etc.
Implementation of the NEP-2020 is currently underway, and it is expected to be fully operational from the academic year 2025-26. After the announcement of the education policy, we have now some experiences and clarity on its impact in our education system. Let us have a quick review on these present conditions and try to project their implications in the long run.
(1) Reduction in the number of Government run schools and increase in private schools in school education.
Recently, an organization called Careers 360 published a study on the state of school education in India. This is their observation by analyzing the data of All India School and Higher Education (AISHE) Report from 2014 to 2023. During this period the population of India increased from 121 crore to 139 crore i.e. about 14.64%. But compared to that, the number of government schools has not increased, rather it has decreased. While this number was 12.04 lakh in 2014, it has come down to 11.28 lakh in 2023, i.e. a decrease of about 7%. On the other hand private schools increased from 2.55 lakh to 3.35 lakh during this period i.e. about 35% increase. The number of new student enrolments in schools also fell by about 12%. 268.23 lakhs were admitted in 2014. In 2024 it is 265.24 lakhs. The cost of primary education is also increasing at the basic level. According to National Sampling Survey (NSS) statistics, this expenditure has increased by 30.7% in 2018 compared to 2014. This negative growth in the literacy rate relative to the population growth is alarming.
(2) Direct government interference in the selection of heads of public educational institutions.
The NEP-2020 recommends to select the heads of educational institutions in a transparent process through a committee formed by renowned experts in relevant fields, so that the most qualified candidates can hold the post. If the list of Directors or Vice Chancellors of the leading institutions of the country at the present day be judged, it will be seen that, barring few exceptions, they, directly or indirectly, subscribe to the ideology of the RSS. This trend has been prevalent especially during the second government under Sri Narendra Modi. The 'opaque' process of ensuring this communication is likely to have been paved soon after the adoption of the NEP-2020. This selection committee is directly chaired by the Education Minister. But even then it may happen that the candidate nominated by the committee is not to the liking of the 'Government'. In that case, the 'nomination' has not been accepted and the whole process has been started again. It is now heard that to avoid this undue harassment a list of three candidates is sent to the Minister's office, one of whom can be expected to be at least aligned in terms of political loyalty. Such was the fate of one unfortunate institution, where the post of Director was vacant for a long time. Eligible (?) candidates were not found in the first selection process. Even after the second process, the declaration of the result was delayed for some unknown reason. Finally the regular Director took the charge, on a day which was supposed to be his retirement day at the same institution at his age of sixty-five years. Whether the incident was a coincidence or not, without any doubt it was indeed dramatic! Needless to say, he was close to the RSS. Under this kind of scenario, it is not difficult to guess the autonomy of the Institution gets compromised quite often under the pressure of Ministry and Political bosses. Loyal Directors are always ready to follow and obey the orders of the Ministry, regardless of the decision-making administrative committees, senates, etc. of their Institutions.
(3) Using public institutions as platforms for campaigning and promotions of Government activities.
Public Institutions are increasingly being used as platforms to promote various activities of the Government under the direct instructions and directives by the Ministry. Various oath taking and observances of specially marked weeks are being organized to attract youth and students towards various Government schemes. Sometimes Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, sometimes anti-corruption vigilance week etc. are organized. The content of posters of those events, their slogans, even the ratios of the heights of the photos of the Prime Minister, other ministers and officials etc., all these detailed instructions are sent by the Ministry to the Institutions. Along with this, how those organization are successfully promoting these programs are monitored by the Ministry by asking them to upload photos and videos of those programs in its website. Sometimes, students are asked to take 'selfie's next to the Prime Minister's photo and upload it on the Ministry's website. The situation has become such that these Institutes have to look forward to the 'Rojgar Mela' (Virtual fairs on recruitment drives) hosted countrywide online by the concerned Ministry in the presence of the Prime Minister for issuing appointment letters for the recruitment of new teachers and staff. Even private Institutions are not exempted from these promotional activities. In this case, the Ministry uses its controls on granting permissions of different grants, donations and accreditation of academic programs, etc.
(4) Restrictions on the freedom of expression of teachers and students.
Although the policy document expresses its determination to restore the dignity of teachers, we see various examples of how the administrative clampdown has been coming down on criticism of the activities of the Government and the ruling party. We have seen how intolerant has become Government machinery centering on a research paper by Dr. Sabyasachi Das, who was a faculty member of the Ashoka University in Sonepat, Haryana. In July 2023, he published a research paper in the SSRN journal of Elsevier publications. His topic was “Democratic backsliding in the world's largest democracy”. Analyzing the electoral data, he showed that the class and group composition of voters in the 2019 election was different from other election results, and statistically inferred that it favored the ruling party. He arrived at this conclusion by adopting a mathematical method of data analysis. The opposition parties also targeted the Government citing the results of his research. After that, there was such a pressure from the Government on the administration of the University , that first they announced to remove institutional affiliation from his research paper. Then the professor resigned due to pressure from various quarters. Earlier, in March 2021, Professor Bhanu Pratap Mehta resigned as a professor from this university under Government pressure. Professor Mehta was also the former Vice-Chancellor of this University.
Likewise, despite making commitment to inculcate democratic spirits in students, their various anti-government movements have been suppressed sometimes by the student organization of the ruling party, and sometimes directly by the police administration. The authorities of these Universities have been pressurised to issue various restrictions against the agitation. For example, in November 2023, the authorities of Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) issued a ban on student agitation on campus, by which the agitating student would have to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 or be expelled for two semesters. The Judiciary has also shown the same attitude in this regard. For example, in February 2020, the Kerala High Court banned all forms of student agitation in the campuses of all education institutions in the state.
(5) Establishing Institutional relationships with Hindu religious organizations and communal mass organizations in premier Institutions such as IITs, NITs, etc.
Various activities are being undertaken to establish close links in leading institutes like IITs with Hindu religious bodies and social mass organizations. For example, the Directors of these Institutes actively pursue signing of MoU with Research for Resurgence Foundation (RRF) of Nagpur, an organization linked with the RSS for various joint activities. Similar things happened with the execution of MOU with the BAPS Swaminarayan Research Institute , New Delhi affiliated to Swaminarayan religious organization. These activities are specially coordinated by establishing the schools of Indian knowledge system as proposed by the NEP. If it continues for a long and influences the academic and research programmes of these Institutes, all these premier institutions of modern epistemology will gradually become patrons of unscientific and pseudoscientific thoughts, and tools for spreading confusion and falsehood in the public mind. Ideological hypocrisy will engulf these institutions too and they will lose their prestige and dignity in the scientific and scholastic world.
(6) Shrinkage of Government funds for higher education and research.
Government funding for higher education and research is steadily declining. In the financial year 2017-2018, the allocation was 1.57% of the total budget. It was reduced to 0.88% in 2021-22. In 2023-24 it got a slight increase (1.27%), but in 2024-25 this allocation has been kept at 1% of the total budget.
Conclusion
Any education policy is designed to protect the interests of the ruling class. So what we need to understand is to what extent those interests are intertwined with the interests of the larger section of the society. When the Radhakrishnan Commission of 1949 formulated the education policy, there was a need to share higher education among the people in the middle and lower middle income groups, to build a new country and a democratic state. The state took direct initiatives and provided financial support to open new Institutions and operate them with more administrative, academic and political freedom. As the economic crisis intensified and the gap between the rulers and the ruled increased, the state had to adopt many undemocratic measures. So the education system also had to change. In the present time, this divide has taken a sharper form. On the one hand, the lion's share of wealth is in the hands of a very small section of the society, on the other hand there is extreme poverty and unemployment. In this situation, it is quite expected that it would adopt a policy of curtailing the spread of higher education among masses, and shedding state’s responsibility in financing Education, in general. That is what is the gist of the NEP-2020.
References
1. National Education Policy, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Govt. of India, 2020.
2. Draft National Education Policy, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Govt. of India, 2019.
3. The Report of University Education Committee (Dec. 1948 – Aug. 1949), Vol. 1, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, 1962.
4. Report of the Secondary Education Commission (Oct. 1952 – Jan. 1953), Ministry of Education, Govt. of India.
5. Education and Development, Vol. 1, General Problems, Report of the Education Commission 1964-66, National Council for Education, Research and Training (NCERT), 1970.
6. Education and Development, Vol. 2, School Education, Report of the Education Commission 1964-66, National Council for Education, Research and Training (NCERT), 1970.
7. Challenge of Education – A policy perspective, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, 1st Aug, 1985.
8. National Policy on Education, with modifications in 1992, 7th May 1992, MHRD, Govt. of India.
9. Srijana Siri, From Nav Nirman Andolan to anti-CAA protests: How student movements shaped Indian politics, Indian Express, January 6, 2024.
10. Interim Budget 2024: Spending on IITs and IIMs declines as a share of total Budget | Data, The Hindu, February 1, 2024.
11. India's 'Education Report Card 2014 - 2023' reveals grim realities, says Maheshwer Peri, South First, March 26, 2024.
12. Sabyasachi Das, Democratic Backsliding in the World's Largest Democracy (January 31, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4512936 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4512936
13. Kerala HC Bans all Forms of Agitations in College, School Campuses, February, 26, 2020, https://thewire.in/law/kerala-hc-college-school-protest-bans
14. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Critic of Government Policies, Resigns as Professor at Ashoka University, https://thewire.in/education/pratap-bhanu-mehta-resigns-as-professor-at-ashoka-university
15. Consultation Process, Timeline formulations of NEP, MOE, GOI, https://www.education.gov.in/nep/tf-nep
17/10/2024
[1] In 1985 a committee under the Ministry of Education performed a review of the education system and recommended a policy document entitled ‘Challenges of Education – A policy perspective’. It was adopted by the Parliament in 1986, and the education policy is called the National Policy on Education -1986 (NPE-86). In 1990, a committee chaired by Acharya Ramamurthy (1913-2010) submitted another review and recommendation of the policy document. Again, at the request of CABE another review was performed by a committee chaired by the then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, N. Janardhan Reddy (1935-2014) and submitted their final recommendations with some modifications to the previous NPE-86 policy document. The modified policy document is referred to as NPE-86/92.
[2] The BJP lost absolute majority, but formed a coalition Government under the premiership of Narendra Modi for the third time on June 9, 2024.
[3] This has become quite clear by various acts of Governors of many States run by other opposition parties in recent years. Many a times these Governors try to exercise their extra-constitutional authority to please their bosses in the Central Government. Even after criticism and various judgments from Supreme Courts in favor of State Governments did not put any deterrence to such activities.
[4] The ECCE was also proposed in the NPE-86/92, but there the nursery education of a child was proposed to start from the age of 4 years onward and is of duration of 2 years. It was also optional for a child. Then, the formal education of a child would start from Grade I at the age of six years.
[5] It was called Higher Secondary or Intermediate Education previously.
[6] Published in 2023: https://ncte.gov.in/website/PDF/NPST/NPST-Book.pdf
[7] https://www.abc.gov.in/
[8] https://netf.aicte-india.org/
