The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which aims to unify India’s educational systems nationally, has been approved without discussions in the Houses of Parliament. At first glance, it becomes evident that the policy focuses on technical education, employment, and skilled labour. The concept of education solely as a means of livelihood for the masses, aimed at earning a living, reflects a caste notion. It can be understood that the policy is formulated based on Hindu Dharma Sastra, where the Brahmins generate knowledge, the Kshatriyas implement it, the Vyshyas manage the economic base, and the Sudras and Dalits become the workforce, engaging in various forms of manual labour. Consequently, the New Education Policy aims at making the masses the labour force, serving the upper castes.

The policy insists that students who reach grade three should attain foundational literacy and numeracy, choose areas of study and work based on their abilities and interests, enhance their life skills, and foster pride in India. This may be because the modern world is structured on an economic basis and the policy approves of at least this level of education. However, it provides only a minimum education for the poor masses.

The modern education system should be founded on the freedom of the individual. Higher education should be seen as a means to acquire wisdom and develop critical thinking capable of transcending structural inequalities, thereby gradually transforming the exploitative social order. Scholars like Dr. B R Ambedkar were able to positively impact people’s lives because they received transformative education. However, the National Education Policy 2020 appears oblivious to the violence inherent in structural social inequalities. The policy does not make any recommendations to address the issue of school dropouts. It becomes the responsibility of civil societies to reintegrate children who drop out of school. Although the policy suggests the romantic notion of students having the freedom to ‘exit’ and ‘re-enter’ education at any point, it lacks elaboration on practical implementation. The likelihood of students who drop out returning to continue their education is minimal. Additionally, the government aims to withdraw from providing financial assistance for education, shifting this responsibility to voluntary organizations.

The suggestion that political groups or organizations based on caste and religion can support financially challenged students is not innocuous. The underlying logic behind this policy is that such voluntary organizations may influence students, shaping a generation that aligns with the political agendas of these organizations. Consequently, students might become ensnared in the structure of social inequality. This suggestion can be seen as romanticizing the injustice and violence inherent in structural social inequalities.

When general education aligns with the norms set by the Sangh Parivar, educational institutions become modern spaces marked by casteism, akin to agraharas. The provision of fellowships to students by private organizations under the guise of philanthropy contradicts the idea of the government as a welfare state. It represents the State’s abdication of its responsibility. These ‘support systems’ impede the evolution of students into individuals with free will and an independent consciousness. Even in this scenario, the government’s aspirations function as an ideology influencing students. This dynamic is detrimental to the growth of democracy and the developmental sensibilities of a state.

Students guided by moral and political values such as truth, beauty, goodness, peace, and non-violence can inadvertently become stereotypical subjects, refraining from opposing the political power dynamics in the country and the resulting inequalities. This aligns with the Union Government’s ambition to position India as the Global Guru. The policy, which designates a significant portion of the population as manual laborers and reserves higher educational opportunities for the elite, merely offers new interpretations for age-old visions. It essentially romanticizes injustice. The Education Policy seeks to overturn the modern and democratic public policy that India has developed over the years, aiming to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra adhering to Hindu dharma. In essence, the NEP becomes a policy document shaping an India culturally determined by Brahminism, politically influenced by Hindutva, and economically driven by corporate capital.

The policy dismisses the recent advancements that democratic India has provided to individuals from the lower strata of society, potentially relegating lower classes, including Sudras, to mere laborers. Examining the statistics related to becoming the Global Guru under this approach is essential. Currently, 54 per cent of the country’s population is below 25 years of age, with 62 per cent falling between 15 and 59 years. Projections indicate that within the next 15-20 years, the global industrial workforce will decrease to less than four per cent, contrasting with India’s expected rise to 32 per cent. This demographic trend positions India favorably for increased participation in the global economic process. By 2025, the average age of India will be 31, reaching 38 by 2050, making it the most youthful country in terms of average age. This sets a conducive environment for India to achieve economic progress.

However, the policy’s emphasis on educational loans over fellowships, coupled with a shift towards foreign university models, risks limiting educational opportunities to the trivarnikas—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vyshyas. When questioned about the shift from three-year to four-year degree programs, officials cite alignment with foreign universities. This alteration potentially restricts higher education opportunities to financially affluent upper castes, by international educational practices. This approach of becoming Vishwa Guru appears to be an inverted policy, sidelining the youth who have hitherto been educated based on prevailing national educational practices and reserving advanced education opportunities for the financially privileged upper castes, thus deviating from the essence of a truly inclusive educational framework.

The reality is markedly different. The quality of the workforce significantly influences the 32 percent growth projection. Despite having a large workforce in India, the nation lags in terms of the quality and excellence of work. If this trend persists, the expanding workforce may remain unemployable, leading to unemployment and underutilization. To harness the benefits of favourable demographics, it is imperative to transform our youth into an outstanding workforce.

Currently, only 15 percent of the Indian workforce is available for formal training, in contrast to 69 percent in North Korea, 80 percent in the U.S., and 69 percent in England. These statistics suggest diminished opportunities for the Indian workforce to participate in job opportunities arising from global economic growth, as evidenced by the 2022 government statistics.

A shortage of 150 million skilled laborers is anticipated in infrastructure development alone, resulting in scarcities of 33 million in the construction field, 26 million in the textile industry, 13 million in the health sector, and six million in education within India. Developing an excellent workforce necessitates an educated human resource. It’s crucial to acknowledge that, at a time when the focus should be on creating an educated and exceptional workforce, education in India is privatized. The education policy, with its emphasis on limited educational attainment, represents a regressive step restricting the human resource potential that grassroots communities could achieve through education.

The rationale behind the education policy is grounded in global economic calculations. The policy aims to provide skill-oriented education from the school level to create a skilled labour force. Twenty-five percent of schools in the country are directed towards producing this labour force by incorporating skill development into formal education. However, in the evolving landscape of global demography, having a youthful population alone will not suffice. Individuals lacking access to quality education cannot become valuable human resources equipped with the necessary skills. The National Education Policy 2020 progresses on a logic that overlooks this fundamental principle of fostering progress among people.

 

 

Rajesh Komath is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala

Lekshmi Prabha Snehalatha is an Assistant Professor of English at the General Department, Government Polytechnic College Adoor, Pathanamthitta, Kerala.