NEP 2020, Five Years On: Curricular flexibility improves, but multiple entry-exit remains rigid

Indian Express

3 days ago

Five years after its approval by the Union Cabinet in July 2020, the National Education Policy (NEP) — envisioned to transform India into a 'global knowledge superpower' — has led to notable systemic reforms. These include greater curriculum flexibility, the integration of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into classrooms, and the establishment of new institutions. However, despite this progress, several structural challenges remain. According to the first 'QS I-GAUGE Implementation Report' by Quacquarelli Symonds, only 36% of higher education institutions (HEIs) have implemented multiple entry and exit points.
The report, based on data from 165 higher education institutions (HEIs) across 24 states and union territories, assesses the policy's progress across key areas.
The most visible impact of the NEP has been the shift away from rigid disciplinary boundaries. Nearly 90% of surveyed institutions now report offering flexible, multidisciplinary curricula, often integrated with vocational components.
Environmental education is nearly universal, and ethics-based courses such as Mulya Pravah 2.0 are now offered by 62% of institutions.
The multiple entry and exit points — touted as a revolutionary student-centric reform — has failed to take root meaningfully. Just 36% of HEIs surveyed have implemented this provision, and only 64% maintain records in the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), the mechanism required for credit portability.
The NEP placed significant emphasis on improving student well-being. Nearly 86% of institutions report having a dedicated student services centre to address emotional and psychological needs.
However, more specialised mental health support, especially in collaboration with national institutes such as NIMHANS or AIIMS, is rare. Only 14% of the surveyed HEIs have formal partnerships with such institutions, the report found.
This shortfall is further reflected in faculty preparedness: while the NEP encourages teacher training in counselling and mentoring, only 64% of HEIs reported that their faculty undergo refresher courses on mental health support. A lack of formal training could limit the efficacy of mental wellness services already in place.
A major NEP goal was to bring industry closer to academia by appointing 'Professors of Practice' (PoPs) to teach applied, experience-based courses. However, this vision remains far from realised.
While many HEIs support the idea in principle, only 14% of institutions have actually appointed such professors. Likewise, only 19% of HEIs involve industry experts in curriculum design, even though this is key to keeping academic content aligned with market demands.
Internships have become more widespread, 98% of institutions offer them with academic credit but deeper, sustained industry engagement through curriculum and faculty collaboration remains largely limited.
According to the QS report, just 22% of institutions currently enjoy autonomous status. What are the barriers? Nothing out of the blue: 153 institutions cite financial dependence as a key issue, 143 mention bureaucratic delays, and 131 point to limited institutional capacity.
But does institutional autonomy really matter? Short answer, yes. It restricts the ability of HEIs to redesign curricula, establish interdisciplinary departments, or forge international partnerships, all crucial to the NEP's vision of 'globally competitive' Indian universities.
Global collaboration has not kept pace with NEP's ambitions. Fewer than half the institutions surveyed (41%) have signed MoUs with foreign universities. Just 33% reserve seats for international students, and only 39% report having dedicated infrastructure to host them. Cross-border research collaboration is also underwhelming, with only 45% of faculty reportedly engaging with international peers on joint research or teaching.
In effect, while the aspiration for global engagement is widespread, the ecosystem to support it, infrastructure, regulatory ease, and funding, remains weak.
The NEP's emphasis on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) has led to the introduction of electives in areas like Ayurveda, Yoga, Sanskrit, and ancient sciences. But progress here is slow and inconsistent, the report has revealed. Only 38% of institutions offer IKS electives for credit, and just 36% run short-term non-degree courses in these domains. Notably, a mere 8% of HEIs have empanelled 'Kala Gurus', traditional scholars meant to teach and research indigenous knowledge.
The report notes that while IKS enjoys rhetorical support, its practical implementation is often limited by a lack of teaching staff, infrastructure, or institutional clarity on integrating traditional and modern epistemologies.
NEP envisioned universities pooling resources and forming large knowledge clusters to promote research and innovation. Yet, 61% of institutions surveyed said they are not part of any such cluster. The barriers cited include infrastructural limitations (138 institutions), financial constraints (140), and cultural or administrative differences (123).
Moreover, only 64% of institutions reported collaboration with regional R&D partners, pointing to the early stages of a research ecosystem that NEP aims to build.
One of NEP's strongest adoption areas has been digital learning. According to the report, 96% of institutions use platforms like SWAYAM, DIKSHA, or SWAYAM PRABHA. Additionally, 94% report investment in digital infrastructure, and 85% offer faculty training in creating high-quality online content.
Yet, equitable access remains a challenge. Only 28% of institutions offer two-year postgraduate diplomas via open and distance learning, an option that could democratise access in underserved regions. And while MOOCs are accepted for credit in 72% of institutions, standardised assessment and integration into degree programs are still evolving.
The NEP has succeeded in reshaping perceptions around higher education in India. Over the last five years, several new public institutions including the Indian Institute of Heritage and multiple Central Tribal Universities have been launched. Funding models are being reconsidered, and digital learning is seeing greater traction than before.
Yet, as the QS I-GAUGE report shows, India's higher education reform remains a work in progress. The policy vision is in place, but its realisation depends on operational support, targeted funding, and regulatory simplification. Without addressing foundational issues like faculty shortages and financial dependency, even the best policy ideas risk being stuck in an implementation limbo.