Pakistan: Decolonization, Depoliticization, And De-Radicalization As Only Path To Meaningful Education – OpEd

 February 27, 2025  

By Sher Khan Bazai

The education system vague in Pakistan since its creation is the continuation of the British colonial education system, which stems from the English Education Act 1835, a legislative Act based on Macaulay’s minutes. According to him, English education should be imparted instead of traditional Indian learning. He believed in education for a few upper and middle-class students and wished to create a class of Indians who were Indian in color and appearance but English in taste and affiliation rather than Indian by Blood & British by Taste. He wished to create a pool of Indians through his education system, capable of serving British interests and remaining loyal to them.  

Here, I am writing only about the two key features of the Macaulay education system and its continuity in the country’s education system since its creation.

1) Focus on the English Language: The system emphasized English as the medium of instruction promoting Western literature which has proved main barrier and detrimental in acquiring education and learning outcomes, which spawned generations in the United India and now in Pakistan. Out of this system, a class grew up and has been growing since 1947 with a sense of inferiority about their own culture, language, and traditions. The net outcome of this flawed education system is the promotion of memorization, rote learning, production of zombies and parrots rather than producing critical thinking or creative minds.

2) Formation of an Educated Elite: The second most harmful intention of the Macaulay education system was to produce a small elite class that could serve in administrative roles and facilitate British governance rather than providing widespread education for the masses. It did lead to increased literacy among small segments of society and the emergence of a new educated middle class, which contributed to a disconnect from Indigenous needs, knowledge, and cultural practices, resulting in long-range destruction like the socio-cultural divide between those educated in English and those who continued to get education in government education institutions. 

What we did in Pakistan further deepened that divide by continuing and adding four types of education: English medium / Urdu medium, public /private, and Madrasah, followed by highly politicized and radicalized education systems. This system persists from 1947 to this day, contributing to socio-economic inequalities and ideological differences, which resulted in political instability, economic meltdown, and sentiments of deprivation and exclusion in the public due to the loss of their identities, indigenous languages, and literature.

In a nutshell, the adoption of the Macaulay system of education promoted a colonial mindset and created a distinct elite class Consisting of mainly civil bureaucracy, political and business classes in the country- Pakistani by blood, color, and appearance but English in taste and affiliation, to serve the political masters and protect their interests rather than delivering service to the public. They neglected the educational needs of the population at large. Such legacy continues to influence the Pakistan education system since its creation till date. 
This distinct class consisting of political elites and civil bureaucracy, with a colonial mindset, over some time, ruined all the government-run institutions, introducing bad governance, plundering the national exchequer, making properties abroad, and giving a debt-ridden economy to the country. 

Ironically, this class, occupying 80% of seats in the country’s parliament, graduated from highly expensive private education institutions like Hihyson Lahore, public school Karachi, GC college or grammar school Lahore, etc, but they are subservient to the middle-class graduate from Kakol Academy Abott Abad, a mid-level military institution. 

Results of the Flawed / Inherited Education System 

It took Pakistan 62 years to incorporate the right of free and compulsory education into its constitution with the enactment of Article 25-A in 2010, guaranteeing free and compulsory education as a fundamental right of all children and placing the responsibility of its provision on the ‘state in line with 1948, UN declaration of free and compulsory education a fundamental human right through Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

However, 13 years after its passage, this legislation remains a pipe dream for the common man and remains largely ineffective due to government inaction resultantly Over 26 million children aged five to sixteen years are still out of school, including 20 million who had never stepped inside a classroom particularly, 12.5 million Girls are out of school in the country. Those who do attend school mostly do not learn the skills required in the 21st century.

Further education has never been a priority in the corridors of power dominated by the ruling class. Therefore, Pakistan is spending- only 2% of its GDP on education, less than the regional countries, India spends 4.6 %, Bhutan 7%, and even war-torn Afghanistan spends 2.9 of its GDP, more than Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s 220 universities’ education budget is below 2%, falling short of global Sustainable Development. 

Furthermore, the situation in Balochistan is worse than that of the other federating units. Education has never been a priority of the past and present government. The chronology of education ministers shows that the ministers in charge of education needed education themselves. Therefore, the state of education in the province is home to the worst indicators, with a whopping 81 percent of girls having failed to complete primary school; the figure for boys is 52 percent. In addition, 75 percent of girls had never set foot inside a classroom as compared to 40 percent of boys. According to a study by UNESCO, in 2022, the female literacy rate is just 36.8% in Baluchistan. 

The provincial government has turned back to meet the demand for missing facilities due to a lack of commitment and financial resources. More than 3200 schools are non-functional due to a shortage of about 2500 teachers, and the teachers already engaged in teaching have received no professional training in content knowledge and pedagogical skills because of a lack of budgetary allocation.

In terms of cost and benefit analysis, both federal and provincial governments together spend about Rs1,000 billion on education annually. That’s almost twice the cost of running the civilian federal government and by far the biggest item after defense and debt-servicing. And that’s just public-sector spending; Private spending is more than this number. And what do we get from all this money? Nothing. The nation has neither produced good leadership to lead the country on a stable and prosperous path, nor the flawed education system given brilliant scientists, economists, strategists, sociologists, or judicial minds to the nation over 77 years. 

Despite tyranny, defunding of and discrimination in the education sector, outdated curricula, and a lack of emphasis on skill and professional interdisciplinary learning, coupled with poor governance, rampant corruption, a complete disregard for merit, and a lack of accountability for outcomes, are the permanent fit falls in the system. Consequently, Pakistan’s education system and the outcomes it produces are among the worst in the world. 

This is largely due to the politicization of education and the over-inducing of ideology in the curricula during Ayub’s and Zia’s martial laws, particularly after the introduction of a Single National Curriculum by the Imran khan regime. We are inculcating in the young minds through textbooks a deliberate propagation of rigid ideologies, creating fake identities and false narratives of one nationhood, opposite to diversity and heterogeneous society. For the last seventy-seven years, we utterly failed to create a nation through textbooks based on rhetoric and teaching young minds false and fabricated history. Rather than letting children learn from our historical mistakes, we are doomed to repeat these mistakes. Consequently, the society has become fragmented, disintegrated, and more poisonous.

It seems that political parties and their governments, irrespective of military or civil, in the past and present, have much in common, they are united in quite a lot, including their efforts to assert control over the education system. The most recent example is the Sindh government passing a law that would allow bureaucrats — in addition to academics — to be appointed vice-chancellors (VCs) of universities. Similarly, in Khyber Pashtoonkhawa, the government also took advantage of its numbers in the assembly and amended the law to give the chief minister the power to appoint VCs. Baluchistan government has already done it in the same way. The Punjab government is planning to flex its muscles similarly and centralize the education sector, making the chief minister and ministers the head of the syndicates governing higher education institutes and removing the VCs from the chairmanship. 

This inherited and deficient education system is a major reason for substandard human capital in the country, which is the biggest impediment to the country’s political stability, social and judicial harmony, and economic progress. Although these issues have been well-known and recognized by the country’s so-called leadership for decades, unfortunately, the ruling elite class has not been serious about addressing these structural weaknesses in the governance and management of flawed Macaulay’s education system, which has resulted in the death of (DEI), diversity, equity and inclusiveness in the country’s overall governance system.

What to Do for Meaningful Changes in the Education Sector 

Our inherited flawed colonial education system needs decolonization on war putting. It requires complete overhauling by introducing drastic structural reforms at the policy level. Pakistan needs a rational, inclusive, harmonious SES (Single Education System) rather than an irrational, exclusive, and radical SNC ( Single National Curriculum).

It can be done by taking extraordinary measures coupled with an increase in the allocation of up to 4% of GDP recommended by UNESCO. Indigenous rational policymaking would entail a stable, long-term vision for education. It could be designed and developed in consultation with those who are highly professional and directly involved in the field of education with complete consent of all federating units in line with the 18th Amendment. 
The drastic structural reforms include Decolonisation, Depoliticisation, and de-radicalization of education both at federal and provincial levels, coupled with the Establishment of independent Provincial education commissions free from political interference in all four provinces in line With the 18th Amendment.

Reform At the policy level includes! Introduction of IT, AI, a departure from blackboards to keyboards, Teachers training and capacity building of management cadre, Indigenous and consensus-based Curriculum reforms, ending language tyranny of English as a medium of instruction and introduction of Indigenous languages as medium of instruction at least to secondary level, adoption of best international practices from primary to a higher level and linking of higher education with the market. Regulation and monitoring of the private education sector. Provision of missing facilities, Establishment of new and up-gradation of existing schools. Timely and merit-based recruitment of teachers against the vacant positions both at the federal and provincial levels.

To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education in the country, We should advocate for the education system to be restructured to educate and serve the common man instead of one percent of the elite class. We need schools and universities to be authentic learning and research spaces and not instruments of coercion and indoctrination or incubators of deceptive ideologies.

Last but not least, declaring an education emergency for a period of five years to shoulder the structural reforms agenda in education, implementation of the 18th amendments in its true spirit and Article 25 (A), providing free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years, including taking effective measures to ensure meeting the targets set by SDG 4, of Sustainable Development Goals

Sher Khan Bazai is a retired civil servant, and a former Secretary of Education in Balochistan, Pakistan. He can be reached at skbazai@hotmail.com.

Make education institutions contributors to peace, not war

Brendan O’Malley  03 November 2023

For the past few weeks our news bulletins have been filled with distressing images of victims from both sides in Israel and Palestine, and warnings of a humanitarian catastrophe.

This comes on top of the ongoing tragedy of war in Ukraine and the conflict in Sudan.

I was invited to speak at the Magna Charta Observatory conference on ‘Universities and reconstruction of cities: the role of research and education’, held in Lodz, Poland, on 23-25 October.

The subject of this talk could not have been more timely. But current events also show that it could not be more challenging either.

But what do we mean by ‘reconstruction’ or indeed by ‘conflict’? Is reconstruction about removing rubble, rebuilding homes, schools, universities and civilian infrastructure?

Conflict can take many forms and damage to infrastructure is only one of many impacts. Students drop, teachers leave, families flee the area, education may be closed down indefinitely, education investment shelved for years.

There is fear, despondency and the psycho-social trauma affecting many individuals, sometimes for years.

Beyond that, the deep, bitter divisions in society are entrenched by war.

As Graca Michel wrote: “The destruction of educational infrastructure represents one of the greatest developmental setbacks for countries affected by conflict.” It hinders the ability of societies to recover after the war.

Mostly today, conflicts are between factions within national boundaries, not war across borders and when the fighting is over and the dead are counted, we can expect the divisions to be deeper than ever, and reconciliation a distant dream.

Even if we resurrect all the buildings levelled by bombings, rebuild all the walls smashed by rockets, fill every shell hole, smooth over every pockmark gouged by shrapnel, it may only count as putting a sticking plaster over the wounds of history instead of addressing the causes of the conflict that brought destruction and death.

Without real peace, anything you rebuild can be destroyed again, whether immediately if conflict is still simmering, or later as conflict resurfaces.

Although I am editor-in-chief of University World News, for this talk I am drawing not just on our articles by journalists and academic experts but on my many years of research leading the first three global studies on Education under Attack – as a consultant for UNESCO and later for a coalition of UN and other international NGOs, the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA).

Education under Attack is now a regular global report on targeted military and political violence against education institutions, students, teachers, academics and other personnel.

It is about bombings, assassinations, forced disappearances, illegal imprisonment and kidnappings, mostly in countries embroiled in conflict or authoritarianism – and mostly carried out by state armed forces and non-state armed groups.

Sometimes education buildings are attacked because they are perceived as being used as a camp or an operating base or a place for weapons storage for opposing troops.

An example of this is Israeli air strikes blowing up the buildings of the Islamic University of Gaza – a member of many international university networks – only a fortnight ago, alleging that it was being used for political and military purposes.

During my research (2006-14), I visited conflict zones, talked to leaders of schools and universities where institutions had been bombed, teachers or academics had been shot or blown up and education trade unionists had faced death threats or imprisonment – places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, and the West Bank and Gaza.

I have also separately reported from conflicts and conflict-affected countries including Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Cyprus.

For the Education under Attack reports, we researched facts about the extent and nature of attacks, but we also gathered information about motives and impact. And we devised recommendations for governments, and education stakeholders on how to prevent education institutions, students and teachers or academics being targeted.

These reports were used to galvanise UN agencies and INGOs (international non-governmental organisations) to put attacks on education as a distinct item on their agenda and to be addressed through their programmes. They also influenced the work of the UN Security Council in making attacks on schools a higher priority in its monitoring and reporting and listing of parties involved in grave violations against children in armed conflict.

In follow-up projects we went out to conflict-affected countries such as Pakistan and the Philippines to pilot training guidance on how to protect education from attack.

Initially there was a lot of focus on schools and later we also developed a strong focus on higher education – with the Scholars at Risk network becoming a key partner.

Universities are the key providers of higher education so are concerned about how and why they are being targeted, but attacks on schools also matter to them, since not only do the schools provide their pipeline of potential students but universities train school teachers and university education researchers help to shape education policy and practice.

For schools and universities, I believe there are two key aspects of reconstruction after conflict. One is reconstruction of their own facilities and educational communities, the other is their role in the reconstruction of society around them and the establishment of lasting peace.

For both their own safety and as key education stakeholders, and as anchor institutions in their community or city, universities have a key role to play in the prevention or avoidance of attacks specifically targeting education and also resilience in the face of attacks. But they also have an important role to play in providing research, analysis and moral leadership on conflict throughout wider society.

Note that UN Sustainable Goal 16 is about the promotion of peace, inclusive societies with justice for all and accountable, inclusive institutions.

People are often not aware of the scale of the problem of targeted attacks on education worldwide. Here are some global figures from Education under Attack 2022 (GCPEA).

Global figures on attacks on education

2022: More than 3,000 attacks on education were identified in 2022, a 17 percent increase over the previous year, according to GCPEA.

Almost one-third of all attacks took place in just three countries: Ukraine, Myanmar, and Burkina Faso, with the war in Ukraine accounting for the majority.

2021-2022 More than 580 university students or personnel were injured, abducted, or killed worldwide, as a result of attacks on higher education, and another 1,450 were detained, arrested, or convicted. 80 attacks on higher education facilities (Education under Attack 2022).

2022-2023: Afghanistan denies higher education to all women.

Heavily affected countries

Among the countries most heavily affected by attacks over the years are:

2003-2008 Iraq 31,598 attacks on schools and universities, including 259 academics assassinated, 72 abducted and 174 held in detention (Education under Attack 2010).

2008-9 Gaza, in a three-week Israeli military operation 300 kindergarten, school and university buildings damaged (Education under Attack 2010).

2015: Kenya 142 students killed, 79 injured in Al-Shabaab attack on Garissa University College, others taken hostage (Education under Attack 2018).

February 2022-February 2023: 2,638 schools damaged, 437 destroyed in Ukraine; and 57 higher education institutions damaged, six destroyed, according to Ukraine’s Ministry of Science and Education.

Attacks on HE and research freedoms

In higher education the methods of attack include all the physical attacks and threats to life mentioned above.

But they also include curbs on academic freedom and university autonomy. This can mean anything from banning people from attending international conferences and withdrawal of passports, to mass dismissals, unlawful detention without trial, imprisonment, torture and death sentences. And constant pressures on individuals to self-censor or openly support arguments they do not agree with.

These are methods used by anti-democratic, authoritarian or military governments who want to stymy open debate, clamp down on critical thought, and close down the space for alternative ideas to emerge.

Authoritarian governments will frequently enforce a restricted curriculum, banning certain subjects from being taught and banning certain topics from being researched or certain findings being published.

We see these methods used in very different situations all around the world, from Afghanistan, to Hungary, and Russia but also increasingly under right-wing governments in democratic countries, including certain states in the United States – witness the latest raft of measures restricting higher education passed in Florida, including the banning of funding for university diversity, equity and inclusion programmes.

In some states the national president has seized control of appointing university presidents – as did President Bolsonaro in Brazil, and President Erdogan in Turkey – instantly raising the pressure on universities to toe the government’s line.

The impact of threats to higher education was captured in 2006 by then UNESCO director general Koichiro Matsuura’s comment on the attacks on academics in Iraq: “By targeting those who hold the keys of Iraq's reconstruction and development, the perpetrators of this violence are jeopardising the future of Iraq and of democracy.”

Measures protecting education

The Education under Attack research showed that if you want to reduce the impact of attack and enable education to contribute fully to peace and development, there are broadly two approaches you can take.

The first is to improve protection and resilience in the face of attacks.

Protection measures can include everything from reinforcing walls, changing roofing materials to less flammable substances, ensuring all rooms have two exits to provide escape routes, and providing armed guards or military escorts.

They can include increasing deterrence in law by strengthening national and international law on attacks on education.

Or ending military use, which makes institutions a target. Even having military protection can make it a more likely target.

Or negotiating between armed parties to conflict to treat education institutions as safe spaces not to be used militarily and not to be attacked.

To date 118 states have signed up to a Safe Schools Declaration which commits states and other parties to measures to protect schools and universities from attack, including preventing use of education facilities for military purposes.

Mario Novelli and Ervjola Selenica, in an essay for Education under Attack 2014, underlined that a key step to defending higher education is to strengthen university autonomy and academic freedom.

Improving resilience

Resilience measures include changing location or switching to online provision, removing the institution as a target. A similar tactic can be used to help threatened students and academics.

Two good examples concerning institutions are two initiatives supported by the Open Society University Network funded by George Soros.

As Nathan M Greenfield has reported for University World News, the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) had 1,000 students enrolled, half of them women, when the Taliban seized power in August 2021. Before government control of Afghanistan evaporated a relocation to Qatar was negotiated and a virtual university set up.

Last fall, AUAF welcomed 100 students in person to Education City, Qatar but of course most of its students have not been able to get out of Afghanistan so the university, supported by Bard College in the US, is offering an online dual programme set by the two universities. In this way, in the words of its president, Ian Bickford, AUAF is keeping open a “lifeline to the outside world” for its students.

Another example is Smolny College, which was the only liberal arts and science institution in Russia, situated within St Petersburg University, as a result of the university’s ties with Bard College. It inspired many other institutions to adopt teaching and curricular practices that it pioneered in partnership with Bard.

Two years ago Russia’s prosecutor general’s office declared Bard an ‘undesirable foreign organisation’ and a threat to the Russian constitutional order and criminalised contact with it. Smolny now survives as the Smolny Without Borders Project, an online project launched by Smolny staff, to give an opportunity for students from Smolny College and everyone else disrupted by war in Ukraine to continue their studies, albeit operating on a small scale with a limited number of programmes.

Scholar rescue schemes, such as those of Scholars at Risk and the Scholar Rescue Fund in the US and CARA in the UK play a key role in supporting scholars both via international solidarity campaigns – to raise the political cost of continuing the threats – and by helping to facilitate temporary posts abroad to keep threatened scholars working in an academic role but in a safer place.

The challenge for scholar schemes like this is how best to provide support without creating a brain drain. Is there some commitment from scholars to returning to their country – and, or incentives – to help rebuild it once conditions allow?

How education can contribute to conflict

We must also think about whether education itself is contributing to conflict and how we turn that around so that education becomes a driver for peace.

Many education institutions are attacked because they or the education system represent a form of education provision perceived as imposing alien culture, religion, language or values and, or discriminating against a particular ethnic or other minority group.

For example, in 2014 we reported the example of the school system in the insurgency in southern Thailand that began in 2004, in which three of the four provinces were ethnic Malay Muslim in a country that was 90% Thai Buddhist. Since 2005 there had been frequent incidents of school teachers and personnel being assassinated, sometimes in class in front of their students; and a number of schools were being attacked each year.

The authorities first responded with military measures, posting guards and military patrols until they realised that enabled rebels to hit two targets with one detonation, schools and teachers along with enemy soldiers.

It took years for them to accept that the policy of using schools as a tool of assimilation was part of the problem. They were banning Islamic schools, Muslim attire, Muslim names and the Muslim dialect and the teaching of local Muslim history; and they were imposing Thai Buddhist teachers and Thai national history.

Eventually an agreement to hire local Muslim teachers, create a sixth day of school per week to allow for Islamic studies and teaching Malay and the local language helped reduce the sense of education imposing an alien culture.

Mahidol University played a positive role in this process of reaching a compromise by running an action research programme designed to help Patani-Malay speakers in school retain their identity but also achieve a Thai national identity. They did this by using Malay in the first two years of schooling followed by Thai.

The importance of understanding motives

What this example and others we found show is, first, that if you want to prevent education being attacked – which can also mean if you want it to be available to play a key role in reconstruction – you first need to understand not just the methods but the motives of the attackers.

Second, you can prevent attacks or conflict in different practical ways, including defence and deterrence, but you can only build lasting peace if you address the motives and causes of violence, which usually involves addressing deeply held grievances such as systemically unequal or unfair treatment.

Third, before you try to contribute to building peace or to prevent attacks on education you should evaluate with an open mind whether and how your own institution might be contributing to conflict yourselves. You might be surprised at what you discover when you do.

How education can contribute to peace

Across education in general there are certain key factors that must be addressed by policy-makers and education authorities and institutions to prevent education contributing to conflict. These include unequal access to provision and resources, biases in the curriculum, discrimination in access and in appointments of teachers and academics and in appointments to senior posts.

Study places and resources must be allocated fairly and transparently, using objective criteria to ensure progress towards good quality lifelong education for all.

This may require extra investment in education for groups neglected in the past, for instance if their secondary education unfairly lacks investment they may not be passing university entry exams to get to tertiary level.

But also, education content and methods of teaching and learning must be adapted to promote peace, mutual respect and understanding, human rights and responsible citizenship. As the series of handbooks Protecting Education in Countries Affected by Conflict (which I co-wrote) published in 2012 by the Global Education Cluster says policies, curricula, textbooks and methods of learning need to be adjusted to achieve these aims.

How you approach contested history, flawed versions of which are a barrier to understanding and inflame desire for conflict, is a major challenge. Part of the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance, is the continuing narrative in many Russian texts of the notion that Ukraine is not a real country, and does not have a legitimate separate identity.

Which language is the medium of instruction or perhaps of admission test is another issue of contention, potentially disadvantaging whole sections of the population in a muti-ethnic country.

In some conflicts these issues may need to be worked out before or as part of peace agreements.

Universities can have an important role in providing the research into understanding conflict and understanding particular conflicts to aid the search for compromises and solutions. International research can help encourage intercultural dialogue and understanding.

To echo the words of Sara Clarke-Habibi in an article for University World News (but put them in the current context of a protracted war in Ukraine and an explosive situation in Israel and Palestine with so many civilian lives at risk): university leaders can use this moment to reflect on how their institution can contribute proactively to the reduction of inequalities, frustration, radicalisation and violence in society.

Perhaps they can begin by considering “how they can better tailor the education and training they provide to contribute to individual and societal resilience, conflict transformation, sustainable development and socially just peace”.

This may mean, for instance, not confining peacebuilding to a particular discipline or department but taking a whole-institution approach, adopting conflict sensitive policies and integrating peacebuilding values, skills and competences across disciplines.

It also requires universities to work in partnership with communities to raise awareness, set peacebuilding agendas and develop capacities for societal change.

Brendan O’Malley is editor-in-chief of University World News. This is an edited version of a keynote speech he made at the Magna Charta Observatory conference, held in Lodz, Poland, on 23-25 October.

 

India’s Education Expansion: Building Human Capital or Just Producing Degrees?

Tajamul Rehman Sofi | 16 Mar 2026

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The country is producing more graduates than ever but not enough productive employment.

Image Courtesy: Needpix.com

India stands at a demographic turning point. By the end of this decade, the country will possess the largest youth population in the world. In policy discourse, this is often celebrated as a demographic dividend. But demographic advantage is not automatic; it depends on whether young people can translate education into productive employment.

The expansion of education spending and reforms under the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) aim precisely at strengthening India’s human capital base. The real question, however, is whether expanding education alone can deliver economic opportunity when job creation itself remains uneven.

Recent Union Budgets reflect an ambitious push to modernise India’s education system. The Union Budget 2025-26 allocated around ₹1,28,650 crore to education, prioritising infrastructure and digital access. Initiatives included broadband connectivity for schools, the expansion of Atal Tinkering Labs, digital learning materials in Indian languages and new infrastructure for the Indian Institutes of Technology.

The following year, the Union Budget 2026-27 increased allocations to ₹1,39,285.95 crore, an increase of about 8.27%. New proposals included girls’ hostels in every district, university townships, specialised institutes in healthcare and pharmaceuticals, and a committee focused on “Education to Employment and Entrepreneurship.”

State governments have also expanded spending. Uttar Pradesh, for example, allocated ₹80,997 crore to basic education while increasing investment in vocational programmes, smart classrooms and artificial-intelligence laboratories. These initiatives suggest that governments are trying to align education with emerging technological and knowledge sectors.

The broader policy framework guiding these reforms is NEP 2020, which seeks to transform the education system through multidisciplinary learning, flexibility in degree programmes and greater emphasis on skills. One of its most ambitious goals is to raise the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education to 50% by 2035, up from around 27% in 2018. According to the All-India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), enrolment in higher education has been steadily increasing in recent years

The policy also aims to expose at least half of all learners to vocational education by the middle of the decade. In principle, this shift could bridge the long-standing divide between academic education and labour-market skills. Yet the expansion of access raises a deeper question: does more education automatically translate into better human capital?

One persistent concern is the quality of teaching. The NEP emphasises continuous professional development for teachers and highlights teacher training as a cornerstone of reform. However, financial allocations for teacher education remain modest relative to the scale of transformation envisioned.

Under the Samagra Shiksha programme, which integrates several school-education schemes, teacher training accounts for only a limited share of total education spending. Without substantial investment in teacher capacity, improvements in learning outcomes may remain limited. International experience shows that infrastructure expansion alone cannot guarantee educational quality.

The push toward vocational education faces similar implementation challenges. Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, have expanded vocational programmes through school-based skill streams, polytechnic institutions, and partnerships with industry. For instance, Tamil Nadu has strengthened vocational pathways within higher secondary education, while West Bengal has introduced skill-oriented courses in thousands of secondary schools.

Yet, despite these initiatives, vocational education remains a relatively small component of the overall education system. According to data from the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+), only a limited share of secondary school students is enrolled in vocational courses, indicating that skill-based education has yet to become a mainstream pathway.

Labour-market evidence reinforces this concern: data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) suggests that a significant proportion of graduates still lack the practical skills required by industry. But even if education reforms succeed in improving employability, the central puzzle remains unresolved: where are the jobs?

Industry partnerships, internships and apprenticeships can help graduates transition into employment, but they cannot replace the fundamental requirement of large-scale job creation. When the economy itself does not generate enough employment opportunities, educational expansion alone cannot absorb the growing number of graduates.

Recent labour-market trends highlight this structural tension. India’s overall unemployment rate fell to about 4.8% in 2025, yet youth unemployment remains significantly higher. At the same time, employability indicators have improved only marginally. According to the India Skills Report, employability rose from 54.81% in 2025 to 56.35% in 2026.

Sectoral patterns also reveal the limits of labour absorption. The information-technology sector is expected to generate millions of jobs by the end of the decade, particularly in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and data science. Healthcare employment is also projected to expand significantly, while renewable energy is emerging as another important source of future jobs. Yet these sectors together cannot absorb the millions of graduates entering the labour market every year.

Historically, manufacturing has played a crucial role in generating mass employment in developing economies. In India, however, manufacturing growth has become increasingly capital-intensive, with automation limiting its capacity to create jobs at scale.

This growing mismatch between education expansion and labour-market demand raises the risk of degree inflation a situation in which the number of graduates rises faster than the availability of suitable employment opportunities. In such circumstances, graduates may find themselves underemployed or working in occupations that do not require their qualifications.

Another dimension of NEP 2020 is its encouragement of greater private participation in higher education. Private institutions can expand capacity and introduce innovation, but they also raise concerns about affordability and equity. Higher tuition costs may restrict access for students from economically weaker backgrounds, while quality assurance across institutions remains uneven.

Ultimately, education policy cannot be separated from economic strategy. Human capital formation depends not only on better schools and universities but also on an economy capable of productively employing skilled workers.

India’s education budgets and NEP 2020 represent an important step toward expanding access and modernising the education system. But the success of these reforms will depend on whether economic growth generates sufficient employment opportunities for the country’s rapidly expanding pool of graduates.

If education policy and economic strategy move together, India’s youth population could become a powerful engine of growth. If they move apart, the country may discover that producing degrees is far easier than producing jobs.

Dr. Tajamul Rehman Sofi is an economics researcher specialising in financial stability, banking efficiency, jobless growth and public policy analysis. The views are personal.

Limiting screen time

Faisal Bari 

Published March 27, 2026

DAWN

CHILDREN need education, physical activity, family and relaxation as well as adequate time for sleep (around nine to 12 hours depending on their age). This has become harder to manage as screen time has been increasing a lot in recent decades. A typical day for me —before the era of mobile phones, the internet and social media — was school till about 2pm, lunch, some time for relaxation, an hour or two for homework, and then, depending on the time of the year, playing with friends in the neighbourhood. Cricket, hockey, football, cycling, even gulli danda and pithoo gol garam were all indulged in till around sunset when it became too dark to see anything. Only then would we return home. An hour or so of some schoolwork or Quran study followed before dinner and family time. Bedtime was not much later than 9 pm, after we had time to wind down and read a book for about half an hour.

Though I was not the fittest of children in the neighbourhood, the hockey and cricket we played gave me enough experience to not only have an interest in the games but to be part of teams up to college and university level. And they helped me be comfortable with physical activity and kept me reasonably fit and mobile.

Times have changed. Television has become a lot more enticing. Mobile phones, the internet and social media have made online activities much more attractive, even addictive. The reading culture has taken a hit while audio/ visual engagement has increased. Perceptions and reality of security have changed to the point where many families are uncomfortable with their children playing in the neighbourhood. Families have become more nuclear, and social/ physical mobility has made neighbourhoods less known and less friendly. All this means children in general spend more time at home, glued to their TV, computer and mobile screens; they have far fewer opportunities for structured physical activities. With concurrent changes in our diet, health outcomes for our children are different too.

Evidence regarding screen time and its impact on child development and health, as well as reduced physical activity, richer foods and less engagement with the real, as opposed to the virtual, world are leading many countries to counsel parents and schools to limit child exposure to screens. Some countries have legislated that social media will not be available to children under 16. Others are mulling similar restrictions. Some countries have said that mobile phones will no longer be allowed in schools. Some have said that screen time, even in educational institutions, would only be allowed when needed; the use of pen, paper and books should make up the rest of the time.


Children today have far fewer opportunities for structured physical activities.

We’re still behind the curve in Pakistan, where schools and parents take screen time to be a way of increasing access and ensuring quality. The Punjab government recently announced that AI would be part of the curriculum across all grades in public and private schools.

Given that outside space is not considered very safe, community and neighbourhood bonds seem to have weakened. Diets increasingly include rich foods, screens are a lot more addictive, and we expose children to more screen time for educational purposes. So, how do we structure physical activity or other activities for our children that would ensure better overall development and reduce the harm triggered by overexposure to screens?

If our school timings were as long as they are in some countries, games and physical activities could be organised in schools. But our schools let children go at around 1.30pm, and between 8am and 1:30-2 pm, there is not enough time for regular games if students are to take the full load of the curriculum as well. Making school days longer would mean providing lunch and other facilities. This might not be practical even in the medium run. Some schools, like Aitchison, make sports compulsory for all students who have to return to school in the afternoon/ evening a few times a week. But this is only possible as Aitchison caters to the upper income groups for whom transport cost is affordable. Aitchison also has 176 acres of land so they have all the grounds and facilities needed to cater to a few thousand students. Most private and public schools do not have such facilities.

Within the possibilities present, schools can ensure that screens are used only when necessary, mobile phones are not allowed on the premises, and 30 minutes or so are set aside daily for physical activity within school timings. If schools can start music and art classes and introduce book clubs or skill acquisition clubs, this would be of great help in engaging students in productive activities.

Can we create safe spaces for children in neighbourhoods? These could be sports clubs, community centres or activity/ skill clubs where children from the neighbourhood could go. It would be too expensive and impractical to bring children back to school in the afternoon/ evening, but if there was a good space within the community where they could be supervised by trusted adults and have enough room to play and engage with each other, the impact on children’s environment and upbringing could be positive.

Computers, mobile phones and the internet are tremendous channels for learning and interaction, but, and there is plenty of evidence about this now, they also have a strong negative impact on learning and children’s mental health. Many countries are trying to limit the use of computers and social media for young people to ensure the positive remains but the negative is curtailed. One way of doing this is to engage young people in physical and other activities, not only to ensure their well-being but also to limit the overuse of screens and social media. But structuring physical activity and sports/ skill clubs in today’s changed environment is difficult. We need innovation in schools and communities to create spaces that allow us opportunities for gainfully engaging young people.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives and an associate professor of economics at Lums.

Published in Dawn, March 27th, 2026