Skip to main content

AISEC calls for rollback of privatization, communalization in Indian education system

By A Representative 
On the birth anniversary of social reformer Raja Rammohan Roy, the All India Save Education Committee (AISEC) unveiled the Draft People’s Education Policy 2025 (PEP 2025), presenting it as a comprehensive and democratic alternative to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Framed after extensive consultations with educators, students, parents, and civil society groups, the draft aims to revive the vision of India’s freedom fighters for an education system that is truly universal, secular, scientific, democratic, and inclusive.
The release of the draft policy comes after years of nationwide opposition to NEP 2020, which AISEC criticizes as a centralized and top-down imposition that bypassed parliamentary debate and ignored the voices of key stakeholders. AISEC points out that the NEP was finalized during the COVID-19 lockdown and was never placed before Parliament, despite education being a subject on the Concurrent List requiring both central and state collaboration.
According to AISEC, NEP 2020 undermines the constitutional promise of equality in education by promoting privatization, commercialization, and online models of learning that exclude large sections of the population. It notes that the NEP's vision is heavily skewed toward central control and market-oriented goals, and it dangerously opens the door to religious and ideological indoctrination under the guise of “decolonizing” Indian education.
In contrast, the People’s Education Policy 2025 is rooted in the values of social justice, pluralism, and federalism. The document traces the historical evolution of education in India—from its exclusionary nature in ancient and medieval times to the role played by modern social reformers and freedom fighters in advocating for mass education. The policy acknowledges past efforts post-independence to universalize education but highlights persistent disparities in access, quality, and infrastructure, especially for rural, marginalized, and economically disadvantaged communities.
PEP 2025 outlines a vision for a robust public education system that is fully state-funded and democratically governed. It opposes the NEP’s 5+3+3+4 structural shift and instead reaffirms the 10+2 framework, integrating pre-primary, primary, and middle schooling into a cohesive system. The draft calls for free and compulsory education up to Class 12, with state responsibility for funding infrastructure, hiring qualified teachers, and ensuring uniform standards across rural and urban areas.
The draft policy pays detailed attention to addressing educational disparities. It proposes specific strategies for improving access and quality in rural schools, increasing girls’ enrollment through gender-sensitive curriculum reforms, ensuring educational support for socially disadvantaged groups like Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and expanding facilities for children with physical and mental disabilities. It also recognizes the challenges faced by children of migrant workers, street children, and others on the social margins, demanding inclusive measures to integrate them into mainstream education.
The People’s Education Policy places strong emphasis on keeping school curricula secular, scientific, and rational. It argues for eliminating content that reinforces caste, gender, and religious stereotypes and calls for a curriculum that fosters critical thinking, mutual respect, and constitutional values. It opposes any interference by political authorities in syllabus-making and urges that curriculum decisions be left to independent academic bodies composed of educators and experts.
At the higher education level, PEP 2025 strongly opposes centralized entrance tests like CUET and NEET, advocating instead for admissions based on local and institutional processes. It criticizes the NEP's “entry and exit” system for degrees as disruptive and misleading, and calls for stable three-year and four-year structures based on disciplinary requirements. The policy also raises concerns over the unchecked growth of private universities and insists that the government must not allow self-financing models in public institutions.
In the domain of research, the draft insists on academic freedom, ethical standards, and adequate public funding. It supports the reinstatement of M.Phil programmes and demands stipends and fellowships for all research scholars, while rejecting government interference in topic selection or research direction.
On professional education, including engineering, medicine, law, and agriculture, the draft policy calls for periodic curriculum updates, government funding, and a scientific approach. It rejects practices such as capitation fees and management/NRI quotas in professional institutions and emphasizes that all professional courses must also include humanities subjects to nurture socially conscious graduates.
AISEC has called for wide-ranging discussions on the draft across the country. “This is only a draft,” said a representative of the Committee, “and we will continue to hold consultations with all stakeholders before finalizing the policy. Our aim is to present a truly people-centric education framework, one that fulfills the constitutional promise and the dreams of India’s freedom fighters.”
The final version of the People’s Education Policy 2025, once revised based on public feedback, will be placed before a National People’s Parliament and then submitted to the central and state governments with a demand for its implementation.
In a climate of growing concern over the direction of India's education system, the release of this draft signals a determined pushback from civil society. It seeks to reclaim education as a public good, a tool of empowerment, and a cornerstone of a democratic and egalitarian society.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 01, 2025

    Happy to know about the release of People’s Education Policy. It seems to reflect the views of common man.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor

TRENDING

Arrival of USS Lincoln: A ‘leisure trip’ to Thailand or a neo-colonial move to commodify women?

By Benyasiri Eimviriyapong   The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for a ‘leisure trip’ in Thailand before returning to its campaign of destruction against the people of West Asia demands immediate interrogation and opposition. For us Thai people, and those in sites of American plunder across the globe, this a rattling of the US’ cold war colonial chains on its most loyal lap dog, while conducting a war of aggression in Iran and the ongoing genocide in Palestine. In allowing the USS Lincoln to dock, the Thai ruling elites are once again facilitating a system of imperial violence that extends far beyond Southeast Asian borders, a system which in our case, is predicated on sexual violence and femicide.

Pilgrimage or pollution? The waste crisis of Indian faith

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  In today's times, there are certain issues that are constantly talked about and discussed, yet no visible impact seems to be made. Beyond water, soil, and pollution, one crisis that continues to be overlooked is waste. Like other life-threatening problems, waste too is gradually moving toward burying and obliterating us. After the Kanwar Yatra in Haridwar, approximately 8,000 tonnes of waste were left behind on the riverbanks, including bottles filled with urine. 

The 'Dr' debate masks a larger crisis in allied-health education

By Dr P K Gupta*  India’s allied-health professions have long operated in a fragmented landscape of universities, hospitals, State authorities and private institutions, each with its own nomenclature, curriculum and standards. The National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 was meant to correct this by creating a unified national framework for education, professional regulation and institutional recognition. Few dispute the need for such oversight. The real question is whether standardisation is quietly becoming synonymous with longer courses, additional internships and new professional titles—changes that risk masking deeper gaps in clinical training, institutional capacity and affordability.