Factoring Choice in the New Education Policy 2020

Photo by Stas Knop

 “We are our choices.”

                                                    ―Jean-Paul Sartre

The New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is a watershed moment in the history of Indian education reforms which was introduced in the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic. Gaining its momentum through the TSR Subramanian committee to the Kasturirangan committee, it aims at “achieving full human potential, developing an equitable and just society, and promoting national development.” It duly acknowledges that “the world is undergoing rapid changes in the knowledge landscape.” As such it strives for inculcating those qualities in education which will make it more “experiential, holistic, integrated, inquiry-driven, discovery-oriented, learner-centred, discussion-based, flexible, and, of course, enjoyable.” The wide-ranging scope and the nationalistic fervour with which the policy is formulated is so comprehensive that it becomes almost impossible to disagree on its intent for a better educational framework.

The immediate concern of the coronavirus pandemic impact recovery and the strategic juncture of the Indian demography with an enormous potential to reap benefits of ‘demographic dividend’ and create a force of human resources which can accelerate the nation to new heights, make this policy significantly crucial. Given the fact that Indians spend enormously on education even with unemployment in sight takes the policymakers into a moral battleground to ensure that the hopes are not dashed. It becomes thus imperative to involve all relevant stakeholders and not cut corners. On this front, there was a certain amount of flak drawn from various actors from academia and alike who questioned whether adequate consultative processes were adopted with the state governments to capture the nuances of regional aspirations. Ultimately, education being on the concurrent list also necessitates the state governments to have an uncompromisable say on its implementation.

NEP allows education to be responsive to the changing dynamics of the disruptive world order which is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). As we confront fast technological endeavours, the pace of our life doesn’t remain unaffected. The implications of this is manifold - changing consumption patterns, changing societal structures, changing value systems, changing worldview and so on. A particular clause in the NEP is of prime concern in this regard - allowance of multiple exit options during the undergraduate program. This facility enables more flexibility in career choices in the light of socio-economic dynamism. It has a potential to counter the problem of educated unemployment by enabling quicker adaptation to cycles of boom and bust in Industry 4.0 - which are fast, high and nimble technological innovations like artificial intelligence, big data, augmented reality, cloud computing, internet of things and the like. 

Fundamentally, the choice to exit is also crafted in the policy by linking it to specific certifications so as to minimise loss of early exit. For example, a certificate after completing 1 year in a discipline or field including vocational and professional areas, or a diploma after 2 years of study, or a Bachelor’s degree after a 3-year programme, or a 4-year multidisciplinary Bachelor's programme. This modular approach slices and dices the knowledge discourse system which has been traditionally so intact. It also makes a statement in itself - that experimentation is possible. Are we catering to instant gratification or being strategic about developing human resources to cater to the needs of building better societies is something that time will tell. Nevertheless, the promise of free will for those who matter the most in this case - the students, can prove to be the best endowment in Indian educational landscape.

As with any other policy, the NEP also embarks on a journey of hope - to be materialized at the future date subject to overcoming implementation challenges and driving political will of participants. This is amplified in Bourdieu’s envision of the state’s creation of a national system of education as a means to involve citizens in a unified market - the market of modular undergraduate programs. The ideological underpinnings of this thought needs to be seen in the context of how globalization overpowers the independence of direction of national policy. The notion of mobility and migration facilitated through innovative educational models can also be understood in the same note. Afterall, it becomes pertinent to align the national interests to the tides of global change in an integrated world system. The welfare state has an implicit responsibility to ensure that no one is left behind in the march of development through education. And, rightly so.