RTI reveals top-down push in NEP 2020, Centre sidelining states' concerns

On July 29, 2020, after the Union Cabinet approved the National Education Policy (NEP), Ramesh Pokhriyal, the then Union Minister of Human Resource Development (later, Education Minister), told the media that it was drawn up after “the largest consultation and discussion process of its kind”.

In August 2023, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the NEP was “flexible” and “not imposed on states by the Centre” and that they could “adopt the policy according to their requirements,” as per media reports.

All along, the NEP was promoted as a bottom-up reform based on consultations with stakeholders.

Yet, documents accessed by The Federal through the Right to Information (RTI) Act contradict this picture, revealing a top-down approach by the Education Ministry, raising critical questions on the federal character of education governance in India.

States raised concerns

As early as September 2020, several state representatives had raised concerns regarding the implementation of the NEP in a meeting chaired by then President Ram Nath Kovind with state governors and chief ministers in attendance.

Yet, the RTI documents — supposed to contain information on all communication between the ministry and states/Union Territories (UTs) on NEP implementation — don’t reveal if these concerns were ever responded to or addressed.

Also read: CM MK Stalin unveils TN's state education policy; snubs NEP's 3-language rule

The minutes of several “zonal consultation-cum-review meetings” held in 2023-24 show that these gatherings were largely structured as compliance exercises, with the states and UTs asked to present their “achievements vis-à-vis targets” fixed by the Centre.

Rather than as forums for policy dialogue or local adaptation, the meetings functioned primarily as monitoring sessions assessing the states’ progress against goals set centrally, the documents suggest.

Early objections

According to the RTI documents, a ‘Governors’ Conference on Role of NEP 2020 in Transforming Higher Education’ was held on September 7, 2020, presided over by Kovind. It was also attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pokhriyal, among other officials.

Also read: PARAKH 2024 survey: Are national assessments hurting learning?

Documents show that concerns and objections to the NEP were raised from several quarters. The late Satya Pal Malik, who was the Governor of Meghalaya at the time, said the “state will face a lot of challenges” on various fronts including the establishment of MERUs (Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities) in each district, increasing GER (Gross Enrollment Ratio), low number of accredited colleges, employment opportunities and need for state level regulatory bodies.

Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren stressed the “participation of all stakeholders such as state, teachers, students, parents, etc.”

It was said that Pokhriyal assured the participants that the policy's implementation would take into account everybody's suggestions and recommendations, but the RTI response did not include any record of follow-up talks.

Government's response

The RTI documents said: “He (Soren) further stated that there should be financial coordination and proper distribution of funds between the Central and state governments, as the states lack finances for education.

"He further stated that while taking decision regarding privatisation of education, socio-economic condition of the state and tribal areas should kept in mind… He further added that in view of lack of infrastructure, attention should be paid to the development and promotion of languages which are not in 8th Schedule… He warned that privatisation of education in rural areas may lead to lack of skilled teachers in the rural education system as they would prefer private institutions.”

Also read: TN's Rs 19-crore initiative to enhance students’ proficiency in English, Tamil amid NEP row

Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, a BJP leader, was also on record saying that “being a small state”, Goa “may face some challenges in the implementation of the policy on account of financial implications”. Sawant added that NEP implementation would also be a challenge as “most of the institutes in Goa are either under the state government or fully funded”.

While the minutes of the meeting stated that Ramesh Pokhriyal “assured all the participants, the implementation will take into account the advice, suggestion and recommendation” of all, significantly, they did not include any record of follow-up consultations.

Precarious federal relationship

Like Soren, the questions raised by representatives from Kerala and West Bengal also point to a precarious Centre-state relationship.

As per the RTI, KT Jaleel, then Kerala’s Higher Education Minister, stated that the state's low financial capacity "can be a challenge in implementing the education policy”.

Also read: Exclusive: 'Centre pushing Hindi through the backdoor', says TN minister Anbil Mahesh

Jaleel noted that NEP-2020 proposes an HEI (higher educational institution) in each district, and questioned how the resources (financial, land and so on) will be managed. He also noted the lack of mention of reservation and finance in NEP.

Further, Jaleel said the system of accreditation is proposed at the central level "while such a system should also be at the state level also,” the documents read.

Bengal's concerns

Partha Chatterjee, the former Education Minister of Bengal, stated: “West Bengal has some reservations with regard to some provisions of NEР-2020, such as common language, multi-level UG level programmes, and the closure of M Phil courses”.

“He further noted that consolidation of higher systems, centralisation of education by creating national level councils will marginalise the role of the state. He also questioned whether an expenditure of 6 per cent of GDP will be sufficient to meet the goals of NEP-2020 and lack of clarity in how the fund will be shared. He opposed the non-inclusion of Bengali in the list of classical languages and demanded to rectify this or for removal of relevant clause from the policy,” the documents revealed.

Delhi’s former Education Minister Manish Sisodia also recorded his apprehensions, especially regarding the implementation of ECCЕ (Early Childhood Care and Education).

Also read: Ever wondered what's happened to budget spend on Education over the years?

“Hon'ble Minister stated that the proposed programme in NEP is not suitable as trained teachers are available for such children in other countries whereas in the policy this work is to be done by Anganwadi workers,” the minutes read.

No follow-up talks

The minutes of the meeting stated that Pokhriyal “assured all the participants, the implementation will take into account the advice, suggestion and recommendation” of all. Yet, the RTI response did not include any record of follow-up consultations where states’ concerns were addressed or where implementation models were modified, based on feedback.

Further zonal review meetings that the ministry organised in 2023-24 to “review the status of implementation of NEP 2020” continued with this top-down approach. These meetings were attended by state education secretaries, nodal officers for NEP, and central officials from the Education Ministry’s departments of higher education and school education and literacy, and representatives of the University Grants Commission, among others.

Also read: Karnataka govt sets up body to unveil new education policy, shun Hindutva

Each state was asked to present data on “initiatives undertaken,” “achievements vis-à-vis targets”, and a “future plan of action.”

Targets and achievements

The states were also asked to present data on “achievement vs targets” on a total of 18 parameters — Multidisciplinary Education, Adoption of Academic Bank of Credits, Adoption of Multiple Entry and Exit, NHEQF (National Higher Education Qualifications Framework) and Curriculum & Credit Framework, ODL (Open and Distance Learning) and Online Programmes, Digital Nodal Centres, Internship/Apprenticeship Embedded Degree Programme, Alumni Connect, Industry-Institute Linkage, Research and Development Cell, Academic and Research Collaboration between Indian and foreign HEIs, Office of International Affairs, Ranking Excellence, Adoption of Guidelines of UGC (University Grants Commission) on IDP (Institutional Development Plan), Accreditation, Faculty Tracking, Courses in Indian Languages, and Embedding IKS (Indian Knowledge System) in the curriculum.

The minutes indicated uneven participation across regions. While states such as Gujarat and Karnataka showed higher participation and achievement, Tamil Nadu (which has rejected the NEP) and the UT of Lakshadweep were recorded as having submitted “no data”.

Similarly, Daman & Diu did not submit data on achievements. Most other states show only partial “achievement” of targets.

Also read: Mamata's U-turn: Why Bengal government has softened position on NEP 2020

There are also repeated letters by the ministry to higher education departments of all states and UTs to submit data on achievements and initiatives, arguably to amp up pressure on the states.

'Centre's straight diktats'

“Most of the NEP process was done during COVID-19. They called it a paperless approach," educationist Anita Rampal told The Federal. "And they did it all through straight diktats going down from the Centre to the states. The states just had to fill in some questionnaires and send them back. It is bizarre, the way they did it.”

Education is a subject listed in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, granting both the Centre and states the power to legislate. The RTI documents, however, suggest that the Centre’s approach to implementation has often blurred the boundaries.

NV Varghese, former vice-chancellor of the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, traced this centralisation to the disbanding of the Planning Commission — a “semi-academic” body which earlier served as an institutional space for negotiation between the Centre and states.

Also read: New edu policy draft read like pamphlet of resounding emptiness

“Previously, there used to be a discussion in October, where ministers or officials from each department used to come and discuss with the Planning Commission about plans and policies. Then, in February or March, they would finalise the plans. There used to be discussions and negotiations — not only at the political level, but at the professional level. Now, such discussions have disappeared,” he told The Federal.

A detailed questionnaire sent to Higher Education Secretary Vineet Joshi did not elicit a response.

Coming next: RTI shows Centre using centrally funded institutes to 'push' NEP in state universities