The “3Cs” Haunting Indian Education: Evidence, Validity, and Alternatives

Centralization, Commercialization, and Communalization

The Indian education system faces significant scrutiny, with critics arguing that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 reflects a troubling triad of centralization, commercialization, and communalization. This article examines these claims using empirical evidence and scholarly references to assess their validity. It proposes a decentralized, equitable, and secular alternative to address these challenges.

Introduction

India’s education system, a cornerstone of its democratic framework, stands at a crossroads. The NEP 2020, hailed as a transformative policy, has been critiqued for exacerbating three systemic issues: centralization of power, commercialization of education, and communalization of curricula and institutions. These concerns, articulated by Sonia Gandhi in The Hindu (March 31, 2025), reflect broader debates about governance, equity, and identity in Indian education. This article evaluates the evidence behind these “3Cs,” assesses their legitimacy, and explores a viable alternative.

1. Centralization: Consolidating Power Over Education

Evidence

Centralization refers to the Union Government’s increasing control over education, a Concurrent List subject under the Indian Constitution. The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a key federal consultative body, has not convened since September 2019, undermining state input [The Hindu, 2025]. The NEP 2020 was implemented without mandatory state consultation, despite opposition from states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which have drafted their own State Education Policies (SEPs) [The Hindu, 2023]. Funding mechanisms, such as the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), have been used to enforce compliance with central schemes like PM-SHRI, with significant funds withheld from non-compliant states in 2023-24 [PRS Legislative Research, 2024]. In higher education, the 2025 UGC guidelines empower Governors—often Union appointees—to influence Vice-Chancellor appointments, eroding state autonomy [UGC, 2025].

Validity

The evidence supports the centralization critique. Education’s shift to the Concurrent List in 1976 was intended to balance power, not centralize it [Constitution of India, 1976]. The lack of CABE meetings and unilateral NEP implementation violate this principle. Scholarly analyses, such as those by Mukundan and Bray (2004), highlight that centralized control stifles local innovation, a concern echoed in the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s critique of fund allocation (2024). However, proponents argue that centralization ensures uniformity in quality—a claim unsupported by evidence given India’s diverse educational needs.

2. Commercialization: Privatization and Profit Over Access

Evidence

Commercialization is evident in the closure of 89,441 public schools since 2014, contrasted with the establishment of 42,944 private schools [Civilsdaily, 2025]. The NEP 2020’s emphasis on school complexes risks diluting the Right to Education (RTE) Act’s neighbourhood school mandate [The Hindu, 2025]. In higher education, the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) has shifted costs to students through loan-based funding, repayable via fee hikes [HEFA, 2024]. Corruption scandals, such as the NAAC bribery case (2023) and NTA’s exam irregularities (2024), underscore a profit-driven ethos [The Wire, 2024].

Validity

The data corroborates commercialization concerns. The decline in public schools and rise in private institutions align with neoliberal trends critiqued by scholars like Tilak (2018), who argue that privatization exacerbates inequality. The RTE Act (2009) aimed to ensure universal access, but its weakening through school closures contradicts this goal [RTE Act, 2009]. HEFA’s loan model mirrors global trends of cost-shifting, as seen in the U.S. (Heller, 2011), but India’s low per capita income (₹1.7 lakh, 2023) makes this unsustainable. Critics claim private investment boosts quality, but unregulated fee structures and scandals undermine this argument.

3. Communalization: Ideological Imposition in Education

Evidence

Communalization involves embedding a Hindu nationalist agenda in education, linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). NCERT textbooks have excised references to Gandhi’s assassination, Mughal history, and, briefly, the Constitution’s Preamble (reinstated after protests) [Civilsdaily, 2025]. University leadership increasingly comprises RSS-aligned appointees, with the UGC proposing relaxed qualifications for such roles [UGC, 2024]. Courses like “Sanatan Literature” at Maharaja Sayajirao University (2023) signal a shift toward religious indoctrination [The Hindu, 2023].

Validity

The communalization charge holds substantial weight. Historians like Habib (2000) have debunked communal historiography, yet its resurgence in textbooks reflects political intent over academic rigor. The appointment of ideologues mirrors global trends of educational politicization (Apple, 2006), compromising intellectual freedom. Defenders argue that emphasizing “Indian knowledge systems” (NEP 2020) restores cultural pride, but the exclusionary nature of revisions contradicts India’s secular Constitution (Article 25) [Constitution of India].

Discussion: Are the Concerns Valid?

The “3Cs” are substantiated by empirical trends and align with critiques from scholars and opposition leaders. Centralization undermines federalism, commercialization deepens inequity, and communalization threatens secularism—each eroding the public education system’s ethos. The government contends that NEP 2020 enhances quality and global competitiveness [Ministry of Education, 2020]. However, this lacks evidence, as Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) gains (32% in 2023 vs. 50% target by 2035) lag behind promises, and quality metrics remain stagnant [ASER, 2024]. The concerns are largely valid, though their extent varies by region and institution.

Alternative: A Decentralized, Equitable, and Secular Framework

An alternative model prioritizes:

  1. Decentralization: Restore CABE’s role and empower states to adapt NEP 2020 to local contexts, as Canada’s federal system demonstrates [OECD, 2023]. Karnataka’s SEP offers a blueprint, focusing on regional priorities [The Hindu, 2023].
  2. Equity Over Commercialization: Increase public funding (current 2.9% of GDP vs. NEP’s 6% goal) to revive neighbourhood schools and cap private fees, mirroring Kerala’s public education success (Dreze & Sen, 2013).
  3. Secularism: Enforce constitutional values in curricula with independent oversight of textbook revisions, akin to South Africa’s post-apartheid reforms (Jansen, 1999).

Concluding Observations

The “3Cs” reflect real threats to Indian education, supported by data on governance, funding, and ideology. While NEP 2020 aims for transformation, its execution prioritizes political goals over educational ones. A decentralized, equitable, and secular approach offers a path forward, balancing quality with India’s diverse democratic ethos.

Suggested Readings

  • Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. Routledge.
  • ASER. (2024). Annual Status of Education Report. Pratham Foundation.
  • Constitution of India. (1976). Amendment 42, Concurrent List.
  • Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions. Princeton University Press.
  • Gandhi, S. (2025). “The ‘3Cs’ that haunt Indian education today.” The Hindu, March 31.
  • Habib, I. (2000). “Communalisation of Education: The History Textbooks Controversy.” Academia.edu.

Education for All in India