Opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in Punjab: Issues, Implications, and Broader Context (2025)


Abstract

This article critically analyzes the opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in Punjab, as voiced by educationists, teachers, and student leaders during an awareness convention organized by the Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF) Punjab on April 9, 2025. The study examines the concerns raised—privatization through digitalization, corporate interference, neglect of mother-tongue education, and teacher shortages – while situating them within the broader national discourse. It explores whether Punjab’s resistance is unique or reflective of wider sentiments across India, identifies additional issues not highlighted in the convention, and investigates why these concerns have gained prominence five years after NEP 2020’s introduction. The analysis draws on primary accounts from the convention and secondary sources to offer a comprehensive perspective.

Introduction

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, introduced by the Government of India, aims to overhaul the country’s education system by emphasizing digitalization, flexibility, and inclusivity. However, five years after its announcement, it faces significant pushback, particularly in Punjab, where stakeholders have called for a state-specific education policy. On April 9, 2025, the Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF) Punjab organized an awareness convention in Chandigarh, bringing educators, students, and activists together to critique NEP 2020. Key concerns included the policy’s perceived tilt toward privatization, over-reliance on digital tools, marginalization of mother-tongue education, and exacerbation of teacher shortages. This article examines these criticisms, assesses their uniqueness to Punjab, identifies additional concerns from other regions, and explores why these issues are surfacing prominently in 2025.

Issues Highlighted in Punjab

  • Privatization through Digitalization
Prof. Vikas Bajpai of Jawaharlal Nehru University argued that NEP 2020 uses digitalization as a substitute for addressing teacher shortages, potentially paving the way for privatization. Critics at the convention alleged that linking teacher promotions to digital metrics and plans to close one-third of universities over 15 years signal a shift toward corporate control of education.
  • Corporate Interference
Vikramdev Singh, DTF Punjab’s State President, likened NEP 2020 to the repealed farm laws, suggesting it prioritizes corporate interests over public access to education. Germanjeet Singh and Dharminder Dhanda further warned that the policy could turn students into “cheap labour” for corporations.
  • Neglect of Mother-Tongue Education
Prof. Joga Singh criticized NEP 2020 for misleading claims about promoting regional languages, advocating for mother-tongue instruction from pre-primary to university levels—a resolution unanimously passed at the convention.
  • Teacher Shortages and Centralization
The policy’s failure to address teacher shortages was a recurring critique, with additional concerns about centralizing education control, as evidenced by demands to move education to the state list.

Is Punjab Alone in Raising These Issues?

Punjab’s opposition to NEP 2020 is not an isolated phenomenon. Similar concerns have emerged in other states, reflecting a broader unease with the policy’s implementation:

  • Tamil Nadu: The state rejected NEP 2020 outright in 2021, citing federalism and social justice threats. Tamil Nadu’s government criticized the three-language formula as an imposition of Hindi and favored its two-language policy (Tamil and English). Like Punjab, it has emphasized mother-tongue education and resisted centralization (The Hindu, 2021).
  • Kerala: Known for its robust public education system, Kerala has expressed reservations about privatization and digital over-reliance, arguing that it undermines equitable access in rural areas (The New Indian Express, 2023).
  • West Bengal: Educationists have flagged NEP’s vocational training focus as a risk to academic rigor and raised concerns about corporate influence, echoing Punjab’s critique (Telegraph India, 2022).

While Punjab’s comparison of NEP to the farm laws and its focus on digital promotion metrics appear distinctive, the overarching themes—privatization, centralization, and language policy – are widely contested. Punjab’s push for a state-specific policy aligns with Tamil Nadu and Kerala’s efforts to retain autonomy.

Additional Issues Beyond Punjab’s Critique

The Punjab convention did not address several other concerns raised nationally about NEP 2020:

  • Funding and Implementation Gaps: Critics across India argue that the policy’s ambitious goals—such as increasing education spending to 6% of GDP—lack a clear funding roadmap, risking uneven rollout (EPW, 2021).
  • Equity and Access: In rural and marginalized communities, the digital divide could exacerbate inequalities, a concern noted in states like Bihar and Odisha but absent from Punjab’s discourse (India Today, 2023).
  • Standardized Assessments: The introduction of centralized exams (e.g., CUET) has drawn criticism for favouring urban, English-medium students, a point less emphasized in Punjab’s mother-tongue focus (The Wire, 2022).

These additional issues suggest that while Punjab’s critique is robust, it is not exhaustive, reflecting its specific socio-political context rather than the policy’s full scope.

Why are These Issues Highlighted After Five Years

The resurgence of opposition in 2025, five years after NEP 2020’s launch, can be attributed to several factors:

  • Implementation Realities: Initial optimism about NEP’s reforms has given way to scrutiny as states grapple with practical challenges—teacher recruitment delays, digital infrastructure gaps, and private sector involvement becoming evident only during rollout.
  • Political Mobilization: In Punjab, the convention’s timing aligns with ongoing tensions between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led state government and opposition groups, with education becoming a rallying point akin to the farm laws protests (Kumar, 2025).
  • Cumulative Impact: The gradual visibility of policy outcomes—such as university mergers or digital platforms favouring private players—may have intensified fears of long-term corporatization and centralization.
  • Global and National Trends: Rising global debates about global privatization in education and India’s economic liberalization may have heightened sensitivity to NEP’s corporate-friendly elements.

Concluding Observations

The opposition to NEP 2020 in Punjab underscores legitimate concerns about privatization, digital overreach, and linguistic autonomy, yet it is not unique. States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal share similar apprehensions, suggesting a broader resistance to centralized educational reform. Punjab’s critique, while forceful, overlooks funding, equity, and assessment-related challenges highlighted elsewhere, indicating a localized lens shaped by its socio-political dynamics. The timing of this resistance, five years post-NEP, reflects both implementation failures and strategic mobilization, raising questions about the policy’s adaptability to India’s federal structure. Future discourse must balance state autonomy with national goals to ensure equitable education reform.

Suggested Readings

  • Kumar, V. (2025, April 9). Experts slam NEP 2020, call for Punjab’s education policy. Education Times. Link
  • The Hindu. (2021, September 1). Tamil Nadu rejects NEP 2020 to form panel for state education policy. Link
  • The New Indian Express. (2023, March 15). Kerala tweaks NEP 2020 to suit local needs. Link
  • Telegraph India. (2022, July 10). West Bengal educators flag NEP concerns. Link
  • Economic and Political Weekly (EPW). (2021). NEP 2020: A critique of funding and implementation. Link
  • India Today. (2023, January 20). Digital divide threatens NEP goals in rural India. Link
  • The Wire. (2022, August 5). CUET and NEP: A centralized burden on students? Link

Education for All in India