<p>The dichotomy carefully crafted in our country’s political discourse, India versus Bharat, also reverberates throughout policymaking. The phrase ‘India, that is Bharat’ is a constitutional truism, yet it is often portrayed as if these are two entirely distinct entities. The NEP 2020 begins with this premise and asserts that the current education system, established during British colonial rule for mass education, is inadvertently ‘Indian’ and ‘Macaulayvian.’ It argues that this system does not cater to the needs and aspirations of Bharat, with its indigenous knowledge, values, and norms. The NEP 2020 takes it upon itself to chart the ‘right’ path to decolonise education, an enterprise it claims remained neglected even after 70 years of independence, because it believes that earlier governments were not Bhartiya enough or had a sinister design to keep Indians enslaved to an anglicised understanding of knowledge and knowledge construction.</p>.<p>The NEP 2020 identifies this perceived flaw in our education system as fundamental and seeks to alter both the discourse and the system through the adoption of new and innovative ideas such as learning outcomes, digital and machine learning, academic bank of credits, school and university accreditation, multiple entry-exit options, and vocationalisation. These are presented as globally tested and proven concepts, which, when implemented, are expected to help create Bhartiya schools and universities that will produce global citizens rooted in the Indian ethos.</p>.<p>The policy has completed five years, a relatively short period to assess the efficacy of any reform, particularly in the field of education, where it typically takes around 17 years to complete one full cycle of schooling. However, the celebratory fervour surrounding its anniversary invites a closer examination: are sincere and substantive measures truly being undertaken to implement this policy?</p>.<p>The policy advocates allocating 6% of the GDP to education, but without a financial memorandum, this promise remains a chimera, one that was first proposed by the Kothari Commission nearly five decades ago. The budgetary allocation for education stood at 3.53% of GDP before the NEP and has since declined, reaching just 2.5% in 2024-25.</p>.<p>The Centre has withheld funds from states that do not conform to the adaptation and implementation of NEP, using schemes like PM-SHRI and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as instruments of compliance. In states governed by parties with differing ideologies, such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala, funds are often denied.</p>.<p>Even among private schools, there exists a wide spectrum, ranging from those operating out of modest kothis or bungalows to institutions with sprawling campuses and state-of-the-art facilities. The digital divide is stark, and government schools, too, vary greatly in character, from under-resourced municipal schools to well-funded Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas. According to the UDISE report, among the 3,94,634 government schools catering to classes 6 and above, only 23% have ICT labs, 54% have internet access, and just 35% are equipped with smart classrooms. Despite a significant emphasis on digital and machine learning in the policy, there is no clear roadmap for the digital upgradation of schools. As a result, the policy seems to operate on two distinct tracks – one for India and another for Bharat.</p>.<p>IKS: A thousand-year void</p>.<p>Barely three months after the launch of the NEP, the Ministry established the Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) division to revive India’s ancient knowledge traditions within a modern context. This initiative includes 27 research centres, 17 centres for teacher training and curriculum development, and seven language centres. These centres are actively producing research on topics such as the impact of satvik food on gut health and prana-based Vedic approaches to reducing suicidal tendencies. Meanwhile, over 80% of India’s population continues to consume non-vegetarian food, and there has been a 27% increase in student suicides.</p>.<p>The idea of IKS, as evident in the model curriculum, overlooks any contributions to Indian or Bhartiya knowledge produced between 1000 AD and 1857 AD. The subtext is clear: during eight centuries of Muslim rule, Indians allegedly neither learned nor constructed any meaningful knowledge. The model curriculum elevates Sanskrit, or more precisely, Brahminical, knowledge as the only valid occupant of the sanctum sanctorum of Indian intellectual heritage. In contrast, Tamil, Pali, and Persian literatures, non-textual traditions, and contributions from Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Lokayat, Sufism, and Urdu are treated as though they emerged from some other India or Bharat altogether.</p>.<p>The NEP proposes the concept of a ‘school complex’ to ensure the ‘optimal’ utilisation of resources, a move that has recently triggered a wave of school mergers and closures in Uttar Pradesh. This trend is likely to shrink the footprint of government schools. Frameworks such as the School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) will introduce multiple layers of supervision, increasing bureaucratic oversight. While the policy voices support for public schooling, it simultaneously relaxes the regulatory criteria for establishing private schools. A recent study reveals that only 9.54% of schools meet the basic definition of a ‘school’ in terms of infrastructure and teacher availability. Over two crore children remain out of school, and according to the latest UDISE report, enrolment has declined in both government and private schools by 2.62% and 8.32%, respectively.</p>.<p>No policy can serve as a panacea overnight for the deep-rooted issues of the education system. The anniversary of such a policy should serve as a moment for reflection, revision, and re-anchoring of priorities, not a spectacle by the government, policymakers, and ideological supporters. It must also stand as a moment of sincere contemplation, prompting recognition that in its bid to reinvent Indian education, the NEP 2020 may be entrenching the very divide it claims to bridge, carving out two divergent trajectories for ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’, rather than shaping a unified and just future for all.</p>.<p>(The writer teaches at the <br>Department of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh)</p>.<p>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</p>
<p>The dichotomy carefully crafted in our country’s political discourse, India versus Bharat, also reverberates throughout policymaking. The phrase ‘India, that is Bharat’ is a constitutional truism, yet it is often portrayed as if these are two entirely distinct entities. The NEP 2020 begins with this premise and asserts that the current education system, established during British colonial rule for mass education, is inadvertently ‘Indian’ and ‘Macaulayvian.’ It argues that this system does not cater to the needs and aspirations of Bharat, with its indigenous knowledge, values, and norms. The NEP 2020 takes it upon itself to chart the ‘right’ path to decolonise education, an enterprise it claims remained neglected even after 70 years of independence, because it believes that earlier governments were not Bhartiya enough or had a sinister design to keep Indians enslaved to an anglicised understanding of knowledge and knowledge construction.</p>.<p>The NEP 2020 identifies this perceived flaw in our education system as fundamental and seeks to alter both the discourse and the system through the adoption of new and innovative ideas such as learning outcomes, digital and machine learning, academic bank of credits, school and university accreditation, multiple entry-exit options, and vocationalisation. These are presented as globally tested and proven concepts, which, when implemented, are expected to help create Bhartiya schools and universities that will produce global citizens rooted in the Indian ethos.</p>.<p>The policy has completed five years, a relatively short period to assess the efficacy of any reform, particularly in the field of education, where it typically takes around 17 years to complete one full cycle of schooling. However, the celebratory fervour surrounding its anniversary invites a closer examination: are sincere and substantive measures truly being undertaken to implement this policy?</p>.<p>The policy advocates allocating 6% of the GDP to education, but without a financial memorandum, this promise remains a chimera, one that was first proposed by the Kothari Commission nearly five decades ago. The budgetary allocation for education stood at 3.53% of GDP before the NEP and has since declined, reaching just 2.5% in 2024-25.</p>.<p>The Centre has withheld funds from states that do not conform to the adaptation and implementation of NEP, using schemes like PM-SHRI and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as instruments of compliance. In states governed by parties with differing ideologies, such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala, funds are often denied.</p>.<p>Even among private schools, there exists a wide spectrum, ranging from those operating out of modest kothis or bungalows to institutions with sprawling campuses and state-of-the-art facilities. The digital divide is stark, and government schools, too, vary greatly in character, from under-resourced municipal schools to well-funded Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas. According to the UDISE report, among the 3,94,634 government schools catering to classes 6 and above, only 23% have ICT labs, 54% have internet access, and just 35% are equipped with smart classrooms. Despite a significant emphasis on digital and machine learning in the policy, there is no clear roadmap for the digital upgradation of schools. As a result, the policy seems to operate on two distinct tracks – one for India and another for Bharat.</p>.<p>IKS: A thousand-year void</p>.<p>Barely three months after the launch of the NEP, the Ministry established the Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) division to revive India’s ancient knowledge traditions within a modern context. This initiative includes 27 research centres, 17 centres for teacher training and curriculum development, and seven language centres. These centres are actively producing research on topics such as the impact of satvik food on gut health and prana-based Vedic approaches to reducing suicidal tendencies. Meanwhile, over 80% of India’s population continues to consume non-vegetarian food, and there has been a 27% increase in student suicides.</p>.<p>The idea of IKS, as evident in the model curriculum, overlooks any contributions to Indian or Bhartiya knowledge produced between 1000 AD and 1857 AD. The subtext is clear: during eight centuries of Muslim rule, Indians allegedly neither learned nor constructed any meaningful knowledge. The model curriculum elevates Sanskrit, or more precisely, Brahminical, knowledge as the only valid occupant of the sanctum sanctorum of Indian intellectual heritage. In contrast, Tamil, Pali, and Persian literatures, non-textual traditions, and contributions from Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Lokayat, Sufism, and Urdu are treated as though they emerged from some other India or Bharat altogether.</p>.<p>The NEP proposes the concept of a ‘school complex’ to ensure the ‘optimal’ utilisation of resources, a move that has recently triggered a wave of school mergers and closures in Uttar Pradesh. This trend is likely to shrink the footprint of government schools. Frameworks such as the School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Framework (SQAAF) will introduce multiple layers of supervision, increasing bureaucratic oversight. While the policy voices support for public schooling, it simultaneously relaxes the regulatory criteria for establishing private schools. A recent study reveals that only 9.54% of schools meet the basic definition of a ‘school’ in terms of infrastructure and teacher availability. Over two crore children remain out of school, and according to the latest UDISE report, enrolment has declined in both government and private schools by 2.62% and 8.32%, respectively.</p>.<p>No policy can serve as a panacea overnight for the deep-rooted issues of the education system. The anniversary of such a policy should serve as a moment for reflection, revision, and re-anchoring of priorities, not a spectacle by the government, policymakers, and ideological supporters. It must also stand as a moment of sincere contemplation, prompting recognition that in its bid to reinvent Indian education, the NEP 2020 may be entrenching the very divide it claims to bridge, carving out two divergent trajectories for ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’, rather than shaping a unified and just future for all.</p>.<p>(The writer teaches at the <br>Department of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh)</p>.<p>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</p>
