Whither NEP 2020? A Prognosis

The recent student agitation at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 20 July 2026 attracted nationwide attention. Contrary to popular perception, however, the agitation was not solely about the alleged leakage of the NEET (UG) 2026 question paper. The paper leakage was merely the trigger that brought to the fore the much wider malaise afflicting the Indian education system.

The vast majority of the students participating in the agitation were unemployed, degree-holding youth who had failed to secure employment in either the private sector or the government. For years, it has been pointed out that Indian universities are producing large numbers of degree holders who lack the skills required for employability. Yet, successive governments at both the Central and state levels have failed to take meaningful corrective action.

The National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP 2020), was projected as a panacea for the ills afflicting the Indian education system. July 2026 also marked six years since its promulgation. Yet there is little evidence that its major recommendations have been implemented in ways that have demonstrably improved the quality of education at either the school or university level. In some cases, measures adopted by the authorities have arguably had the opposite effect, as is evident from the manner in which the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) is being introduced into education.

One principal reason for the slow progress is that NEP 2020 largely outlined what needed to be done, but the bureaucracy, both in civil administration and academia, failed to develop a credible roadmap for implementing its recommendations. Before NEP 2020, India had adopted the National Policy on Education, 1968, and the National Policy on Education, 1986. Both made several recommendations for improving educational quality, but neither achieved its intended objectives. More importantly, no comprehensive study appears to have been undertaken to determine why these policies failed. Those responsible for implementing NEP 2020 are consequently working, to a considerable extent, without the benefit of lessons from the past.

Interestingly, as far back as 1938, the British administration had recognised that the Indian education system was failing to provide quality education. A committee recommended measures to remedy the situation, but these were not implemented after Independence. Thus, even 88 years after concerns were first raised about the shortcomings of Indian education, India has yet to implement the fundamental changes required to improve educational standards and employability. In some respects, the Indian education system remains almost a century behind the times.

A Demographic Powder Keg

The consequences are serious. Almost 40% of degree holders are unable to find suitable employment. At the other end of the education spectrum, only about 56% of children who enter Class 1 complete their education up to the Plus Two level. The largely dysfunctional vocational education system does little to equip those who drop out with skills necessary to earn a livelihood.

Instead of fully harnessing its demographic dividend, therefore, India risks facing a demographic catastrophe. The aspiration to become Vishwaguru risks remaining little more than rhetoric, capable of arousing national emotions, unless the education system is fundamentally strengthened.

Indian Knowledge System

NEP 2020 attaches considerable importance to the Indian Knowledge System. IKS encompasses the vast and diverse body of knowledge developed in India over centuries, including philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, agriculture, architecture, linguistics, literature, arts, ethics, environmental practices and systems of learning. It also includes indigenous knowledge transmitted through communities and practical experience.

IKS should not, however, be treated merely as a study of India’s ancient past. Its educational value lies in understanding different ways in which Indians have approached knowledge, life, society and nature. Its integration into education should therefore involve identifying enduring principles, examining them critically and relating them to contemporary needs rather than presenting traditional knowledge as unquestionable truth.

IKS can be introduced through dedicated courses and, more importantly, interdisciplinary learning rather than by adding another heavy subject to an already crowded curriculum. At school level, elements of Indian mathematics, astronomy, literature, languages, ecology, architecture, crafts and ethical traditions can enrich existing subjects. Universities can offer specialised courses, research programmes and interdisciplinary projects connecting IKS with science, technology, management, medicine and the humanities.

The prerequisites are considerable. India needs a clear definition of what constitutes IKS and of its educational objectives. Credible research is required to distinguish historically established knowledge from later interpretations and unverified claims. High-quality textbooks and digital resources developed by multidisciplinary scholars are essential. Teachers and university faculty must be trained to present IKS objectively and critically, while institutions need researchers, laboratories, archives and funding to undertake serious scholarship.

The challenges are equally significant. There is a danger of romanticising India’s past or presenting traditional beliefs as scientific facts without evidence. The opposite danger is dismissing valuable indigenous knowledge simply because it does not fit modern academic frameworks. India’s traditions are also extraordinarily diverse, making it difficult to construct a single coherent curriculum.

Most importantly, teachers and faculty are currently not sufficiently familiar with the nuances of IKS. India has more than one crore schoolteachers and over 16 lakh university faculty members. Before they can be entrusted with teaching IKS, they will need a deep and comprehensive understanding of it themselves. Building this capacity across such a vast workforce could take 10 to 15 years or even more. Yet there does not appear to be a clear governmental roadmap for undertaking this task.

Successful integration, therefore, requires a delicate balance: respect for tradition combined with critical enquiry, evidence, and contemporary relevance. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is often the reverse. In the absence of even a basic understanding of IKS, an ad hoc approach risks reducing its integration to selective glorification of the past or, worse, to targeting past colonisers and invaders. Such an approach distorts the spirit of IKS and fuels acrimony and polarisation. The objective should instead be to draw upon India’s intellectual heritage in a manner that is scholarly, inclusive, evidence-based and relevant to contemporary society.

India is simply not yet fully prepared for large-scale integration of IKS at the school and university levels. Building the necessary academic ecosystem must precede ambitious implementation. It will be a gradual process, potentially taking more than a generation.

School Education

Early Childhood Care and Education

NEP 2020 envisages a five-year Foundational Stage covering children from ages three to eight. This represents a major departure from the traditional structure of school education and requires teachers with specialised capabilities in early childhood development, play- and activity-based pedagogy, foundational literacy and numeracy, multilingual communication, continuous assessment and holistic child development.

India currently has about 23.7 lakh teachers classified as primary teachers within a school-teaching workforce of approximately 1.01 crore. The number involved in ECCE is actually much larger because it includes Anganwadi workers in the public sector and teachers in private pre-schools. Preparing such a vast workforce for specialised ECCE pedagogy is therefore a formidable undertaking.

NCERT has developed the NCF-FS 2022 for children aged three to eight. But familiarising existing teachers with a new curriculum is not enough. What is required is a fundamentally different pedagogical capability, supported by appropriate training and an institutional ecosystem.

NEP 2020 recommended a six-month certification course for existing Anganwadi workers and, in the long term, asked States to prepare cadres of professionally trained ECCE educators. Some States, including Maharashtra, Haryana, Assam and Sikkim, have initiated training, Balvatika programmes and capacity-building for Anganwadi workers and pre-primary teachers. Yet there is little evidence that States have actually created the distinct, professionally qualified ECCE cadre envisaged by NEP 2020. Uttar Pradesh is emerging as a notable exception, while Gujarat has created a supporting trainer structure.

In most States, ECCE continues to depend largely on existing Anganwadi workers and schoolteachers supplemented by additional training. The crucial issue is therefore not merely curriculum but the creation of a specialised profession with appropriate qualifications, recruitment, career pathways and continuing professional development.

Teacher Capacity and Pedagogy

NEP 2020 places the teacher at the heart of the learning process. It seeks to replace examination-oriented learning with conceptual understanding, analytical ability and critical thinking. But more than 1.01 crore schoolteachers themselves are products of the examination-centric system that the policy seeks to change. Retraining such a vast workforce is an enormous challenge.

The National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) illustrate the gap between policy intention and implementation. NEP 2020 envisaged their development by 2022. NCTE eventually developed them: a preliminary draft appeared in November 2021, a field-trial version was approved in March 2022, and the final NPST Guiding Document was launched only in March 2024. More importantly, adoption by States remains voluntary.

The real challenge is therefore not merely preparing professional standards but translating them into a nationally coherent system of teacher preparation, competency assessment, career progression, appraisal and professional development.

The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) presents an even more serious gap. NEP 2020 envisaged that NCTE would formulate an NCFTE, in consultation with NCERT, by 2021. Although work began after NEP 2020, the mandated NCFTE 2021 was not completed. A comprehensive new NCFTE has still not been formally issued. Initiatives such as Individual Teachers Education Programme (ITEPs), NPST and revised teacher-education curricula have therefore proceeded without the overarching framework that NCFTE was intended to provide.

The result is that school education continues, in large measure, to be delivered through practices that predate NEP 2020.

Part of the problem arises from the constitutional division of responsibility. Education is on the Concurrent List, making both the Central and State governments responsible. States have their own priorities and perspectives. Bureaucratic inertia and inadequate political will further impede reform.

Centralised entrance examinations such as JEE, NEET and CUET have also undermined the spirit of meaningful education. They have fuelled the coaching industry and left little room for critical thinking, creativity and imagination. Since these examinations determine access to coveted higher education and career opportunities, parents demand preparation for them, and schools have little incentive to adhere to the NEP’s pedagogical guidelines. Different government agencies therefore appear to be working at cross-purposes.

The consequences are reflected in school participation rates: the Gross Enrolment Ratio is about 90.9% for Grades 6–8, 79.3% for Grades 9–10 and only 56.5% for Grades 11–12.

Higher Education

NEP 2020 described Indian higher education as fragmented, siloed and characterised by inadequate emphasis on cognitive skills and learning outcomes. It also identified poor-quality research, weak governance, ineffective regulation and inadequate merit-based faculty career management.

Its answer was liberal and multidisciplinary education, with rigid distinctions between the arts and sciences, and between curricular and extracurricular activities and vocational and academic fields removed. It envisaged large multidisciplinary institutions, autonomous degree-granting colleges, teaching-oriented universities and research-intensive universities, with the system of affiliated colleges to be phased out by 2035. At the apex were to be Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERUs), modelled on the IITs and IIMs.

The government and UGC have introduced an impressive array of policy instruments in pursuit of this vision. These include the Curriculum and Credit Framework for Undergraduate Programmes, guidelines for transforming institutions into multidisciplinary institutions, the Academic Bank of Credits, multiple entry and exit provisions, the National Credit Framework and permission to pursue two academic programmes simultaneously.

UGC has also issued guidelines promoting experiential, inquiry-driven, learner-centred and discussion-based pedagogy. The Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Programme, launched in 2023, seeks to enhance faculty competence in teaching, learning, research and academic leadership.

Thus, at the level of policy instruments and institutional mechanisms, considerable activity has taken place.

But policy adoption is not the same as pedagogical transformation. The crucial question is whether the typical undergraduate classroom has actually moved from examination-centred teaching to inquiry, discussion, problem-solving, interdisciplinary analysis and creative application.

There are serious structural barriers: faculty shortages, heavy workloads, large classes, inadequate infrastructure, examination systems that reward reproduction of factual knowledge, uneven institutional autonomy and the fact that many faculty members themselves were trained in the traditional lecture-and-examination system. Almost 16 lakh university teachers need capacity building.

There are also contradictions between policy directives and ground realities. For example, the Choice-Based Credit System permits students to select different combinations of courses. This makes a centralised examination schedule extremely difficult because the permutations and combinations can lead to numerous clashes during preparation. One alternative is to allow the faculty member teaching a course to assess the students. Given prevailing concerns about academic integrity, however, this raises another set of problems.

India has therefore created an extensive architecture for higher-education reform through policy directives, but evidence of system-wide transformation in classroom pedagogy remains far less convincing. A pragmatic and innovative approach is needed, but that does not yet appear to be happening at the required scale.

Vocational Education

Indian society has long displayed a deep-seated bias against vocational education. As far back as 1882, the British introduced a vocational training stream at the high-school level. Yet a 1902 survey found that only 8% of students had opted for it. More than a century later, little has changed.

Neither the Central nor the State governments have made sustained efforts to change the mindsets of parents and students or to enhance the social prestige of vocational education. The consequences are alarming. Nearly 44% of students who enter school at the primary stage drop out before reaching Plus Two. With approximately 1.9–2.0 crore students entering Grade 1 every year, this translates into roughly 84–88 lakh young people leaving the formal education system annually, many with few employable skills.

NEP 2020 sought to integrate vocational learning into mainstream education from the middle-school stage rather than treating it as an inferior stream for academically weaker students. It set a target for at least 50% of learners in schools and higher education to adopt vocational education by 2025. Yet NITI Aayog estimated that only about 3.3% of students were enrolled in vocational-technical programmes in 2023, illustrating the enormous gap between aspiration and reality.

Several initiatives have been launched: the revamped Samagra Shiksha Programme, Skill Hubs, PMKVY 4.0, the Skill India Digital Hub, bagless days and vocational internships, the National Credit Framework and B.Voc programmes. These initiatives have expanded infrastructure, courses and policy integration.

Yet the underlying problem remains unresolved. Vocational education is still socially perceived as a fallback for weaker students. Training is often poorly connected to actual labour-market demand. Trainers generally lack industry experience, access to modern equipment and continuous exposure to current technologies. Infrastructure and financing remain inadequate. Apprenticeship linkages with industry, particularly MSMEs, are weak. Multiple agencies create fragmentation, overlapping responsibilities and inconsistent standards. Students also lack adequate career guidance and information on aptitudes, qualifications, employment opportunities, and pathways to further education.

Regional disparities are insufficiently reflected in the planning of vocational facilities, while a very large proportion of India’s workforce remains in the informal economy, where productivity, wages and social security are often low.

The fundamental problem is that India has tried largely to change the supply of vocational education without adequately changing the social and economic incentives that determine its demand. NEP 2020 sought a cultural transformation, but most interventions remain scheme-driven. The status, quality and economic payoff of vocational education have not changed sufficiently.

The Regulatory Environment

NEP 2020 recommended a light but tight regulatory environment. It proposed an umbrella Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), subsuming the UGC and 14 other regulatory bodies, with four verticals:

• National Higher Education Regulatory Council;
• National Accreditation Council;
• Higher Education Grants Council; and
• General Education Council.

Existing domain-specific regulatory bodies were to be converted into Performance Standards Setting Bodies.

Yet there has been little visible progress towards implementing this proposed regulatory architecture. The result is that India’s higher education system continues to suffer from over-regulation and inadequate governance.

Conclusion

Six years after the promulgation of NEP 2020, there is little evidence of any worthwhile improvement in the quality of education provided by the country’s institutions. School dropout rates remain a concern, while unemployable degree holders continue to flood the streets.

This is not to suggest that nothing has been done. The government and regulatory bodies have issued numerous guidelines, frameworks, schemes and programmes. Indeed, the policy architecture surrounding NEP 2020 is now extensive. The problem is that issuing directives and creating frameworks is not the same as transforming classrooms, teachers, institutions and, ultimately, learning outcomes.

The central weakness in the implementation of NEP 2020 has been the absence of a credible, adequately resourced, and time-bound roadmap for translating policy intentions into outcomes. The scale of the challenge is enormous: more than a crore schoolteachers, millions of ECCE workers and teachers, nearly 16 lakh university faculty members, tens of millions of students and thousands of institutions must be brought into a fundamentally different educational paradigm.

India cannot achieve this transformation merely through circulars, guidelines and schemes. It requires motivated and sustained political commitment, administrative accountability, professional capacity, institutional autonomy, adequate financing and, above all, a willingness to confront uncomfortable realities rather than claim success on the basis of policy announcements.

The disconnect between policy intent and educational outcomes does not augur well for India. Unless implementation becomes the central focus of educational policy, NEP 2020 risks becoming yet another unfulfilled promise of educational transformation.

No wonder the students are agitating.