Is it mandatory for all the states to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020? Many teachers and parents ask, especially from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments are strongly opposing the implementation of NEP 2020. West Bengal and Telangana are also coy about the implementation. Tamil Nadu has even reached the court, raising concerns about certain provisions of the policy. Asking TN to implement the National Education Policy is cruel, said the TN government in the Madras High Court. Kerala, on the other hand, appointed a committee under the leadership of leading Left intellectual Prof. Prabhat Patnaik, to scrutinise how congruent NEP 2020 was to the government’s declared stands. The question is pertinent: do states have a constitutional obligation to implement NEP 2020?
The repercussions of the first National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1968 spurred discussions on transferring education from the state list to the concurrent list. There were vehement protests in Tamil Nadu against the NPE of 1968, which suggested that Hindi be taught in schools along with English and the local language. Tamil Nadu was reluctant to implement the National Policy on Education although the Constitution gave it the power to do so by allocating education to the state list. A series of protests erupted in the state under the leadership of Annadurai against the trilingual policy recommended by the NPE of 1968. The resistance had the effect of making Indira Gandhi’s brows contract into a frown—during the Emergency, she indiscreetly lugged education from the state list to the concurrent list.
The history of national policies on education (1968 and 1986) shows that the onus of implementing the policy is not legally binding on the states as there is no trace of litigation between states and the Centre in this matter. Due to various political, linguistic and social reasons, India has a history of not being able to fully implement these policies. For example, the policy of 1986 suggested that every state should start an open university. But in Kerala, an open university was started in 2020. Tamil Nadu never embraced the proposal to teach Hindi as a second or third language. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in all districts was a major directive of the NPE of 1986. But Tamil Nadu did not encourage such schools to come up—to date, not a single Jawahar Navodaya school exists in this state. There are cases in which the Central government itself ignored the recommendations of the National Policy on Education. The government did not take seriously the 1986 policy’s recommendation that an agency should be set up to conduct assessments and evaluations at the national level. Only in 2017 did an organisation called the National Testing Agency get established at the national level. This was due to the pressing need for a professional institution to conduct high-stakes examinations rather than the need to implement the directives of the NPE of 1986.
We have a history of keeping aside the constitutional provisions. Article 45 stated that compulsory and free education shall be provided to all children up to the age of 14 within ten years of the commencement of the Constitution. Unfortunately, in 1966, a few years after the Constitution celebrated its 10th year of implementation, the all-India enrollment ratio in primary school disparaged Article 45 with just 76.7, while middle school and secondary school ratios stood at 30.8 and 16.2, respectively. (MHRD, 2008). The Right to Education bill made education a fundamental right of children only in 2010.
Even when there is no legal obligation, state governments are forced to implement certain recommendations of NEP 2020. For example, NEP 2020 recommends that the school structure be divided into four levels: Foundational, Preparatory, Middle and Secondary (5+3+3+4). National institutes like IITs, NITs, other central institutes and universities admit students who followed the 10+2 system for graduate admission—this would, later on, be revised to 5+3+3+4. Therefore, in the future, the states' reluctance to implement structural changes in the school system would make aspiring students and parents distressed. Naturally, a torrent of students can be expected from state schools to CBSE schools in these states.
Other recommendations of NEP that may become popular in the field of higher education are the suggestions of an Academic Bank of Credit (ABC), a four-year degree, multiple entry and exit points, and an Integrated Teacher Education Programme, all addressing the demands of the labour market. ABC and multiple entry and exit options are alluring offers for the latent labour force in higher education institutions. Besides, if the projects implemented at the national level are not followed at the state level, the financial assistance given on its behalf will also be lost. Further, the structural reforms in schools, reforms in teacher education, and ranking and grading in higher education are other areas that have a significant impact on the institutions and students of oppugnant states.
Some pro-NEP actions have started brewing from oppugnant states these days. The best example is Kerala’s higher education minister announcing that four-year undergraduate courses, a major proposal in the National Education Policy, will start this year despite the Kerala government’s strong opposition to NEP. The universities in Tamil Nadu have already started adopting some features of the policy. It is a win-win situation for the oppugnant states. Anna University registered for ABC and is the 71st institution to do so among 307 state universities. Many universities from oppugnant states are also figuring in the list, like Cochin University of Science and Technology in Kerala. Needless to say, implement it while opposing vehemently! After all, the oxymoron is a part and parcel of politics.
Dr Amruth G Kumar
Professor, Central University of Kerala