MUMBAI — In a sharp escalation of political opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray has publicly backed a protest led by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Thackeray’s intervention, delivered during a press briefing in Mumbai on Sunday, frames the NEP as a policy marred by administrative mismanagement, centralization, and exclusionary practices, while accusing the Modi government of ignoring expert warnings and stakeholder concerns.
The move marks a strategic convergence between a regional political party and a civil rights organization, amplifying criticism of the NEP’s rollout ahead of Maharashtra’s 2027 assembly elections. It also underscores growing discontent with the policy, which has faced sustained opposition from educators, state governments, and marginalized communities since its approval in 2020.
—
What Happened
Thackeray’s remarks came as the CJP, a Mumbai-based human rights group, intensified its protests across Maharashtra and other states, demanding a review of the NEP’s implementation. The organization alleges that the policy has disproportionately benefited private institutions while sidelining government schools and disadvantaged communities. In a statement released last week, the CJP accused the Ministry of Education of suppressing dissent and failing to engage meaningfully with state governments, teachers, and civil society groups during the policy’s execution.
During his press briefing, Thackeray cited specific grievances, including delays in establishing multidisciplinary universities and integrating vocational training—two key pillars of the NEP. “The NEP was supposed to revolutionize education, but instead, it has become a tool for centralization and exclusion,” he said. “The government has ignored repeated warnings from experts and stakeholders. If Minister Pradhan cannot ensure transparency and accountability, he should step down.”
Pradhan, however, has dismissed the allegations as politically motivated. In a recent interview with The Hindu, he defended the NEP as a “historic step toward making India a global knowledge superpower,” pointing to the expansion of digital learning platforms and the establishment of new institutions under the policy as evidence of its success. The minister’s office has not directly responded to Thackeray’s demand for his resignation.
—
Why It Matters
Thackeray’s endorsement of the CJP protest carries significant political and policy implications. For the Shiv Sena (UBT), which split from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2022, the move aligns with its broader strategy of positioning itself as a counterweight to the central government on issues of federalism, social justice, and governance. By targeting Pradhan—a senior BJP leader and a key architect of the NEP—Thackeray is attempting to rally voters disillusioned with the Modi government’s handling of education, a sector that directly impacts millions of families.
The NEP, approved in July 2020, was billed as a transformative overhaul of India’s education system, promising greater flexibility, multidisciplinary learning, and vocational integration. However, its implementation has been contentious. Critics argue that the policy was rushed through without adequate consultation, particularly with state governments, which have constitutional authority over education. The CJP’s protests reflect broader concerns that the NEP’s rollout has favored private players while neglecting government schools, which serve the majority of India’s students, particularly in rural and marginalized communities.
For the CJP, Thackeray’s support could amplify its campaign, lending it political weight and media attention. However, the collaboration also risks politicizing the organization’s demands. The CJP, known for its legal advocacy on human rights issues, has traditionally operated outside partisan politics. Its involvement in the NEP protests marks a shift toward direct policy criticism, raising questions about whether its message will be diluted by association with a political party.
—
Background and Context
The NEP 2020 was approved by the Union Cabinet in July 2020, replacing the 34-year-old National Policy on Education. Its key provisions include:
– A 5+3+3+4 school structure, replacing the existing 10+2 system.
– Multidisciplinary universities and colleges, with flexibility in course selection.
– Vocational education integrated from Class 6 onward.
– Mother tongue or regional language as the medium of instruction up to Class 5.
– Digital learning and online education as core components.
The policy was hailed by the government as a landmark reform, but its implementation has been fraught with challenges. State governments, including those ruled by opposition parties, have raised concerns about funding, autonomy, and the practicality of certain provisions. For instance, the shift to mother tongue instruction has faced resistance in states where Hindi is not the dominant language, while the integration of vocational training has been slow due to a lack of infrastructure and trained instructors.
The CJP’s protests are not the first to target the NEP. In 2021, a coalition of teachers’ unions, student organizations, and civil society groups staged demonstrations across the country, demanding a review of the policy. The All India Primary Teachers’ Federation (AIPTF) has repeatedly criticized the NEP for its “neoliberal agenda,” arguing that it promotes privatization and undermines public education. Similarly, the Delhi government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has clashed with the Centre over the policy’s implementation, particularly regarding the establishment of new universities and the funding of government schools.
—
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
The debate over the NEP’s success hinges on conflicting narratives about its impact and implementation.
Government’s Position:
The Ministry of Education has consistently defended the NEP as a success, citing the following achievements:
– The establishment of 20 new multidisciplinary universities and 100 new colleges under the policy.
– The expansion of the DIKSHA digital learning platform, which has seen a surge in usage since 2020.
– The launch of the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), which allows students to transfer credits across institutions.
– Increased gross enrollment ratio (GER) in higher education, which rose from 26.3% in 2019 to 28.4% in 2024, according to government data.
Pradhan has dismissed criticism of the NEP as “baseless,” arguing that the policy is a long-term reform that requires time to yield results. In a speech last month, he said, “Education reform is not a sprint; it is a marathon. Those who demand instant results are either ignorant or have ulterior motives.”
Critics’ Position:
Opponents of the NEP, including the CJP, teachers’ unions, and state governments, argue that the policy’s rollout has been opaque, underfunded, and exclusionary. Key criticisms include:
– Lack of consultation: The policy was approved without adequate input from state governments, educators, or civil society. The CJP’s statement alleges that the Ministry of Education “suppressed dissent” by ignoring feedback from stakeholders.
– Privatization concerns: Critics argue that the NEP’s emphasis on digital learning and vocational training disproportionately benefits private institutions, which have the resources to adapt quickly. Government schools, particularly in rural areas, lack the infrastructure to implement the policy effectively.
– Implementation delays: The establishment of multidisciplinary universities and the integration of vocational training have been slower than promised. A 2025 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that only 30% of the funds allocated for NEP implementation had been utilized by state governments, citing bureaucratic hurdles and lack of clarity in guidelines.
– Exclusion of marginalized communities: The CJP and other groups argue that the NEP’s focus on digital learning exacerbates inequalities, as millions of students in rural and low-income households lack access to smartphones or reliable internet. A 2024 survey by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) found that only 24% of rural households had internet access, compared to 61% in urban areas.
Uncertainty and Data Gaps:
While the government claims progress, independent assessments of the NEP’s impact are limited. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), a widely cited survey of learning outcomes in rural India, has not yet released data on the NEP’s effects. Similarly, the National Achievement Survey (NAS), which evaluates student performance, has not provided a clear picture of whether the policy has improved learning outcomes.
There is also uncertainty about the NEP’s long-term sustainability. The policy’s success depends on significant investment in teacher training, infrastructure, and digital access—areas where India has historically lagged. A 2025 report by the World Bank warned that without increased funding and capacity-building, the NEP’s ambitious goals could remain unfulfilled.
—
What to Watch Next
1. Political Fallout in Maharashtra:
Thackeray’s demand for Pradhan’s resignation is likely to dominate political discourse in Maharashtra ahead of the 2027 assembly elections. The Shiv Sena (UBT) will seek to frame the NEP as a symbol of the BJP’s “top-down” governance, while the BJP is expected to counter by highlighting its achievements in education and accusing Thackeray of politicizing the issue. Watch for:
– Whether other opposition parties, such as the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), join the demand for Pradhan’s resignation.
– How the BJP responds, particularly in Maharashtra, where it has sought to consolidate its base since the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena.
2. CJP’s Next Steps:
The CJP’s collaboration with Thackeray could either amplify its campaign or dilute its non-partisan credibility. Key developments to monitor:
– Whether the CJP continues to work with political parties or returns to its traditional legal advocacy.
– If the organization files public interest litigations (PILs) challenging aspects of the NEP’s implementation, particularly regarding funding and exclusionary practices.
3. State Government Responses:
Several state governments, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, have resisted the NEP’s implementation, citing concerns over federalism and cultural diversity. Watch for:
– Whether more states join the opposition or seek to negotiate modifications to the policy.
– If the Centre attempts to enforce the NEP more aggressively, potentially leading to legal or political confrontations.
4. Implementation Milestones:
The government has set several deadlines for key NEP provisions, including:
– 2026: Full rollout of the 5+3+3+4 school structure.
– 2027: Establishment of 500 new multidisciplinary universities.
– 2028: Integration of vocational training in all secondary schools.
Progress on these milestones will be closely scrutinized by critics and supporters alike.
5. Civil Society and Academic Reactions:
Teachers’ unions, student organizations, and education experts will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the NEP debate. Key developments to watch:
– Whether unions like the AIPTF escalate protests or strikes over the policy.
– If independent research institutions release studies on the NEP’s impact on learning outcomes, equity, and access.
—
Conclusion
Uddhav Thackeray’s demand for Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation over the NEP’s implementation failures marks a significant escalation in the political battle over India’s education policy. While the BJP government remains steadfast in its defense of the NEP as a transformative reform, the growing chorus of criticism—from state governments, civil society groups, and now a major opposition party—suggests that the policy’s rollout is far from settled.
The NEP’s success or failure will ultimately hinge on its ability to address the concerns of educators, students, and marginalized communities. For now, the policy remains a flashpoint in India
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Indian Express – India — source.
