National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, in fact delves into the broader vision than thought by some and underpins transformative reforms. While some argue that the policy undermines federalism, public education, and secularism, a closer examination reveals that NEP 2020 is a strategic initiative aimed at revitalizing India’s educational landscape by restoring to its rich intellectual heritage, aligning with global best practices, and fostering self-sustaining institutions. Historically, India had a comprehensive knowledge system that ensured the effective transfer of a holistic episteme from generation to generation. A smooth transition of this tradition to the modern day needs was hampered by successive colonial interferences and colonial remnants even after Independence. This led to several glaring gaps in the modern education systems. Recognizing the urgent need to bridge these gaps, the Modi government introduced several groundbreaking reforms aimed at enhancing the quality, accessibility, flexibility and skill orientation of education across India.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is more than a reform—it is a civilizational reset that seeks to position India as a true Vishwaguru, or global knowledge leader. While the policy is rooted in global best practices, it also aims to restore India’s intellectual traditions that were systematically sidelined under colonial rule. However, its opposition comes from intellectual class, long conditioned by Western academic frameworks, who view any effort to decolonize education as a threat to their ideological stronghold. This critique is not just about policy—it is a deeper battle for India’s intellectual sovereignty.
A Break from Macaulay’s Chains
Since the infamous Macaulay education system was imposed in 1835, India’s vast indigenous knowledge traditions—spanning mathematics, yoga, philosophy, metallurgy and linguistics—were deliberately erased in the favor of an English-centric curriculum. NEP 2020 is India’s first major attempt at reversing this historical injustice. The policy introduces a balanced curriculum that integrates modern scientific advancements with the intellectual wealth of India’s past. From the foundational contributions of Aryabhata in astronomy to Charaka’s advances in Ayurveda, the revised curriculum aims to instill pride in India’s knowledge systems while ensuring global competitiveness.
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, a visionary educationist and founder of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), strongly advocated for an Indian knowledge system that counters Western dominance. His vision was rooted in the belief that India’s education should be an amalgamation of modern scientific advancements and the deep-rooted wisdom of ancient texts. NEP 2020 embodies this vision by integrating subjects like Sanskrit, Indian philosophy, and traditional sciences into mainstream education.
However, critics dismiss this initiative as an attempt to “communalize” education. This amounts to their inability to distinguish between nationalism and sectarianism. If China can reintroduce Confucian thought, France can fiercely protect its linguistic and cultural heritage, and Japan can incorporate Bushido ethics in education, why should India’s efforts be labeled as regressive?
Some argue that NEP 2020 isolates India from global education trends, a claim that does not hold up to scrutiny. The policy promotes a multidisciplinary, skill-based, and technology-integrated education model that mirrors the best global practices. The emphasis on critical thinking, vocational education, and flexibility aligns with education systems in countries like Finland and Singapore. The restructuring of board examinations and introduction of credit-based learning make Indian higher education compatible with international institutions.
Yet, despite these clear global alignments, a few people remain opposed to NEP. The reason? The policy disrupts their monopoly over the academic discourse, which has remained tethered to colonial and Western paradigms.
Another misplaced critique is that NEP promotes “commercialization” by encouraging a mix of public and private investment. However, financial sustainability is key to creating world-class institutions. Universities such as Oxford, Harvard, and MIT thrive on a hybrid funding model, where government support is complemented by private investments. India’s Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) follows this tested model to ensure financial independence while maintaining academic excellence.
The real concern for detractors is that such reforms reduce dependency on the old networks of patronage that have long controlled Indian academia. For decades, public institutions suffered outdated curricula. NEP 2020 aims to change that by encouraging institutions to innovate, generate revenue, and compete at a global level. It is not privatization—it is empowerment.
A major concern raised by critics is that NEP weakens state control over education. However, this claim overlooks the significant support provided to state education systems through initiatives like PM SHRI Schools and SSA. These initiatives are designed to enhance school infrastructure, promote innovation, and increase institutional capacity.
PM SHRI Schools aim to create model institutions that embody NEP principles, fostering experiential learning, holistic education, and skill development. Meanwhile, SSA provides states with the financial and technical support necessary to implement quality education reforms. By ensuring accountability and innovation at the grassroots level, these initiatives reinforce, rather than weaken, state education systems.
At its core, the opposition to NEP 2020 is not just about policy disagreements but about an existential crisis within India’s old intellectual elite. This class, deeply influenced by Western scholars, remains uncomfortable with the idea of an India-first education system. For years, they have dictated academic discourse, dismissing Indian traditions as “mythology” while glorifying Western theories.
A nationalist government committed to reclaiming India’s intellectual identity is naturally seen as a disruptor to their comfortable order. The reintroduction of ancient texts, the emphasis on Sanskrit and regional languages, and the recognition of indigenous knowledge systems challenge their long-held assumptions. Their opposition is not rooted in academic rigor but in ideological resistance to the rise of an independent, self-confident India.
Criticism of NEP 2020 as “commercialization” ignores the necessity of financial sustainability for world-class education. Leading global universities rely on hybrid funding models, and India’s HEFA and ANRF follow this best practice to ensure financial independence without compromising academic integrity.
Opposition largely stems from the disruption of entrenched patronage networks that have long controlled public institutions. NEP 2020 fosters innovation, autonomy, and results-driven funding, freeing institutions from bureaucratic stagnation.
Fears of profiteering are misplaced, as a well-regulated framework with performance-linked funding and transparency ensures accountability. Globally, even public universities generate independent revenue—India’s institutions should not be denied the same opportunity.
Rejecting reforms in the name of “commercialization” risks keeping Indian education stagnant. The real issue is not private investment but institutional freedom to thrive without bureaucratic constraints—NEP 2020 paves the way for this transformation.
NEP 2020 is not about returning to the past; it is about using India’s intellectual traditions as a springboard for future global leadership. A truly world-class education system does not discard its own roots; it integrates them into a modern framework. The policy is a step towards achieving this balance—ensuring that an Indian student excels in artificial intelligence and quantum computing while also understanding the philosophical depths of the Upanishads and the scientific rigor of Sushruta’s surgical techniques.
Those criticizing NEP 2020 are not protecting education; they are protecting an outdated colonial mindset. If India is to reclaim its rightful place as a Vishwaguru,
it must embrace its knowledge traditions with the same confidence that Western nations exhibit in preserving their own. The time for India’s intellectual renaissance has arrived, and no ideological resistance should stand in its way. Aano bhadra krtavo yantu vishwatah — “Let noble thoughts come to me from all directions.” (Rig Veda 1.89.1) This timeless Vedic mantra encapsulates the essence of NEP 2020—a vision not of isolation, but of embracing the wisdom of all civilizations while standing firmly rooted in India’s intellectual legacy, for the welfare of the humanity (Vishw Kalyan).
Raghavendra P. Tiwari
Vice Chancellor, Central University of Punjab, Bathind