The National Education Policy, 2020 envisaged a uniform educational system throughout the country. It changed the structure of class groupings in school, made multiple entry and exit points in the undergraduate system, and created a common entrance test for colleges. There were many other changes too. Education being a concurrent subject, however, education policies are being formulated by the states that do not comply with the whole of the NEP. The latest to propose one is Karnataka, which has insisted on a two-language policy in school like West Bengal and Tamil Nadu instead of the NEP’s three languages. It has rejected National Council of Educational Research and Training textbooks for books with localised content. State education policies are declaring the need for unique regional content and an introduction to regional culture. Multiple entry and exit points in undergraduate courses have been rejected by Karnataka, keeping the three years for undergraduate plus two for post-graduate classes. The West Bengal policy keeps the school class groupings in the old system of five-four-two-two instead of the NEP’s five-three-three-four. While the Indian knowledge system through scriptures is a thrust area of the NEP, the proposed Karnataka state education policy is introducing constitutional value education. A centre would be set up for studying traditional knowledge in Kannada.

The differences of the NEP with the state policies lay bare the former’s weaknesses — not carefully thought out? — and the need for autonomy and decentralisation in education. For example, both West Bengal and Tamil Nadu have rejected the common entrance test as unfair to rural students and centralised. The aspiration is towards equity and inclusion. Karnataka has proposed a Karnataka State Quality Assessment Board, which will help universities and colleges achieve excellence. Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have objected to policy changes by the University Grants Commission too, such as more contract jobs, vice-chancellors brought in from industry, and the denial of power to the states to set up search committees for vice-chancellors. It is here that the KSQAB will have a crucial role to play in its interaction with the UGC over policy. It is unfortunate that the most fruitful aspects of the NEP do not appear to be producing the desired results. But depriving the states of autonomy in education is always problematic; the states will take up the reins whenever necessary.