The National Education Policy 2020, launched with much fanfare, has been hailed by the government as a forward-looking reform aimed at equipping Indian students for the demands of a globalized knowledge economy. With promises of holistic learning, flexibility, vocational training, and digital access, NEP 2020 aspires to transform the Indian education landscape. Yet, as with many grand visions, the devil lies in the details — or in this case, the omissions.
Despite its progressive veneer, NEP 2020 raises several troubling
questions. Its centralizing tendencies, vague formulations, digital overreach,
and silence on structural inequality point to a policy that may widen — rather
than bridge — the fault lines in Indian education.
A Return to Central Command
One of the key concerns with NEP 2020 is its move toward centralization.
The proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) will replace existing
regulatory bodies and centralize decision-making, curriculum design, and
accreditation. While the intent may be to ensure uniform standards, this
approach runs contrary to India’s federal structure.
Education is a concurrent subject under the Constitution. States are often
more attuned to the linguistic, cultural, and infrastructural realities on the
ground. Centralization not only undermines their role but also risks
homogenizing education in a country as diverse as India. A tribal school in
Odisha cannot — and should not — be subjected to the same curriculum and medium
of instruction as a private school in Bengaluru.
Language, Inclusion, and the Spectre of Imposition
The NEP’s emphasis on using the mother tongue or regional language as the
medium of instruction until at least Grade 5 — and preferably till Grade 8 — is
rooted in sound pedagogical reasoning. Research does suggest that early
learning is more effective when delivered in a familiar language.
However, in the Indian context, language is not merely a medium of
instruction but also a deeply political issue. Many parents, especially in
urban and semi-urban areas, view English education as a pathway to opportunity.
The policy’s silence on how this shift will be implemented, especially in
states with multiple regional languages or large migrant populations, has
created apprehension.
Moreover, the revival of the “three-language formula” — with an implicit
push for Hindi — has drawn criticism from non-Hindi speaking states. There is a
legitimate fear that linguistic diversity may be sacrificed at the altar of
national integration.
The Minister and the Message
Dharmendra Pradhan, who currently holds the portfolio of Education
Minister, has positioned himself as a steward of this policy’s rollout. A
politically seasoned leader from Odisha with strong RSS leanings, Pradhan has
taken every opportunity to showcase NEP 2020 as a transformative achievement of
the Modi government. But under his stewardship, the policy’s emphasis has
shifted more towards symbolism than substance.
Grand inaugurations, textbook rewritings, and high-decibel promotion of
Indian knowledge systems — often to the exclusion of plural histories — have
taken precedence over the nuts and bolts of implementation. While ministerial
speeches highlight ancient civilizational glory and "Bharatiyata" in
education, ground-level issues such as teacher training, digital
infrastructure, and dropout rates among disadvantaged communities receive far
less attention.
Pradhan’s focus appears more aligned with ideological repositioning of
education than with addressing the systemic inequalities and resource
deficits that plague the sector. His ministry's silence following instances of
student distress — including suicides linked to academic pressure and
inaccessible institutions — is also telling. If the Minister wishes to be
remembered as a reformer, then policy must translate into lived change — not
remain a talking point at conclaves.
The Digital Divide: A Reform for the Few?
The policy’s enthusiastic embrace of digital learning, online assessments,
virtual labs, and EdTech platforms reflects a global trend accelerated by the
COVID-19 pandemic. But in a country where millions of students still lack
access to basic electricity, let alone internet or digital devices, such a
shift risks leaving behind the very communities the policy claims to uplift.
India’s digital divide is not a gap — it is a chasm. While urban students
in elite institutions may benefit from hybrid models and AI-enabled learning,
their rural counterparts may be pushed further to the margins. The NEP’s
failure to address this structural inequity raises the question: reform for
whom?
The NEP places considerable emphasis on vocational education, starting as
early as Grade 6. While skill development is essential, its integration into
the school system without adequate safeguards could lead to tracking — a subtle
but dangerous streaming of students based on class, caste, and economic
background.
There is a risk that children from marginalized communities may be nudged
toward vocational streams at the expense of academic rigor. Unless vocational
training is backed by robust job creation and social mobility, it may
inadvertently reinforce hierarchies rather than dismantle them.
Perhaps the most glaring omission in NEP 2020 is its inadequate attention
to equity and social justice. While the policy frequently uses words
like "inclusion" and "access," it is strikingly silent on
caste-based discrimination, gender disparity, and minority exclusion.
There is no clear mention of reservation policies in private or
foreign-funded institutions, nor is there any roadmap to address high dropout
rates among Dalit, Adivasi, and Muslim students. The absence of institutional
mechanisms to protect the interests of marginalized groups is a critical
failure — and one that cannot be ignored in a country still struggling with
entrenched educational inequality.
A Policy Without a Law
NEP 2020 is a policy document — not a law. It lacks binding legislative
force. Its implementation depends entirely on the political will of the Union
and state governments, institutional capacity, and budgetary support. Many of
its recommendations are aspirational, unsupported by timelines, regulatory
frameworks, or financial commitments.
Moreover, the language of the policy is often vague and open to
interpretation. Phrases like “light but tight regulation,” “holistic
development,” and “multidisciplinary institutions” sound progressive but offer
little operational clarity. In the absence of enforceable guidelines, the NEP
risks remaining a lofty vision with limited ground impact.
The National Education Policy 2020 is, undeniably, ambitious. Its vision of
a more flexible, creative, and student-centered education system is admirable.
However, ambition must be tempered by realism, and vision must be grounded in
context.
A truly transformative policy must address the systemic inequalities that
define Indian education — not merely sidestep them. It must recognize that
technology cannot replace teachers, that skill without dignity is exploitation,
and that reform without equity is no reform at all.
If the NEP is to succeed, it must be reimagined not just as a document of
policy, but as a commitment to constitutional ideals — of justice, equality,
and fraternity. Anything less would be a disservice to the millions of students
whose futures depend on it.
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra
is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and
society with a focus on democratic accountability, civil liberties, and
education reform. He can be reached at ssmishra33@gmail.com.
