The newly formulated ‘National Education Policy’ has gathered a lot of attention, both in the form of criticism and praise. Digital Social Activist and Analyst Nitish Rajput shed a very intimate light on the details of the policy in his latest viral YouTube video named- Reality of New Education Policy 2020. 

Nitish says in a candid video- “The NEP talks a lot about flowery goals but if you look deep and engage in some research, then you’ll find that nothing is very new, yet it looks different.”

Nitish Rajput who is one of the very notable and established social media personalities, engaged his users in a very deep, well curated analysis of the National Education Policy. 

Nitish was one of the most active and enthusiastic speakers in the TikTok vs YouTube controversy for which he was a guest panelist on the RED FM 93.5. 

Nitish states that although the NEP promises to bring transformational change to the overall structure of the education system as we know it- it leaves the heart of the problem unaddressed. For the ease of his viewers, Nitish then describes the policy and its clauses in brief- he talks about the 5+3+3+4 structure, multiple entry and exists in college education, and the inclusion of coding and vocational internships which are great changes but might carry their own pitfalls if not implemented in a phased and thoughtful manner.

Next up, Nitish discusses the pros and cons of the ‘education in mother tongue’ clause which has sparked a huge debate on the Internet. He says that one cannot expect the private schools to shift their curriculum to a regional language and for government schools which will do this might spark a class difference and further create problems for students in catching up with the real world. He says this clause will eventually end up creating huge barriers for government school children who will have a very tough time competing with private school children and also in the procurement of jobs later on in life. This particular point and it’s explanation gathered a lot of attention in the comments section. 

To elaborate his ‘hit and miss point’, Nitish further points out another loophole, that is, the CEE (Common Entrance Exam). He explains that although this is a welcome step but yet again, it has not been made mandatory. Therefore, the private universities might not comply and continue to hold their own entrance exams which will eventually burden the students- financially and academically. The environment required for the growth and smooth application of CEE has not been looked into. 

A crucial point that is always looked upon is the GDP allocated for education. Nitish meticulously breaks down that point and it truly turned out to be the highlight of the video.

He says that NEP 2020 has allocated 6% GDP for education, but looked carefully- this is nothing new as the same percentage was allotted in 1968 and 1986. A percentage which should have increased over the years has remained the same even after 52 years of policy- making. He further points out that even though a certain percentage has been allotted, India has not been spending in that direction. He states facts. He mentions that between 2017- 2018, India has given only a mere 2% to education while our closest neighbours- Bhutan and Nepal have not only committed but also invested a good 6% of their GDP to education. 

Citing resources, Nitish says that the three main drawbacks which have never been addressed in any NEP, especially the recent one have been- infrastructure investment, teacher training and outdated syllabus. He says these are pitfalls that have been highlighted and backed by the top three science institutions and their esteemed professor panel. Nitish also sheds light on the scam around midday meals which has again been included in the policy. He points out that without looking into these issues, any real time change is not possible and if we choose to look the other way, we only commit ourselves to condemning more generations of students to poor outcomes.

Nitish brings home the discussion and points out that commentary on the New Education Policy (NEP 2020) has welcomed its idealistic pedagogic vision but rightly criticised its failure to make the more important addressal of deeper systemic problems afflicting education.

He makes his viewers understand that the policy is still a draft and up for discussion in the Parliament where it might fall into the hands of regular bureaucracy – yet he maintains a positive and hopeful outcome of the policy- one that benefits everyone and gives the right to education a real meaning.