What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

EDITORIAL 1: Five years of NEP: Taking stock of the transition

Context

It is five years since the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 — the country’s third such policy since Independence — was cleared by the Union Cabinet.

What has worked

• The NEP promised a sweeping reset of both school and higher education. Some of that vision has made its way into classrooms.
• But a lot remains on paper, slowed by state-Centre frictions, or held up by institutional delays.
• School curriculum is changing, slowly:The 10+2 system has been replaced with a new structure — foundational (pre-primary to class 2), preparatory (classes 3-5), middle (6-8), and secondary (9-12).
• In 2023, the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) laid out the learning outcomes and competencies for each stage.
• The NEP aims to make pre-primary learning universal by 2030.
• Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala will soon enforce the minimum age of six for class 1 entry. 2023-24 data show a fall in class 1 enrolments to 1.87 crore from the 2.16 crore of previous year, likely due to this age cutoff.
• About 73% of those enrolled had attended some form of preschool. The big hurdles are better training for Anganwadi workers, and improving infrastructure and teaching quality in early education centres.
• National focus for foundational skills: NIPUN Bharat, launched in 2021, seeks to ensure every child can read and do basic math by the end of class 3.
• Credit-based flexibility starts to take shape: The NEP suggested the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC).
• This, and a National Credit Framework (NCrF) have been developed. UGC rules published in 2021 allowed students to earn and store credits digitally, even across institutions, making it possible to move between courses or exit and re-enter.
• The system allows students to earn a certificate after one year,a diploma after two, or complete a four-year multidisciplinary degree.
• The NCrF brings similar flexibility to school students,where learning hours (including skill-based ones) translate into credits. CBSE invited schools to be part of an NCrF pilot last year.
• Common test for college entry: The Common University Entrance Test (CUET), introduced in 2022, is now a key route to undergraduate admissions.
• Indian campuses abroad and vice versa: IIT Madras, IIT Delhi, and IIM Ahmedabad have set up international campuses in Zanzibar, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai respectively.
• University of Southampton recently opened in India, after two other foreign universities at GIFT City, Gujarat.

What’s in progress

• Changes in board exams: The NEP envisages less high-stakes board exams. Starting 2026, CBSE plans to allow class 10 students to sit for board exams twice a year. Karnataka has experimented with this; other boards are waiting to see how it plays out.
• Holistic report cards, so far on paper: PARAKH, a unit under NCERT, has developed progress cards that go beyond marks, and include peer and self-assessment. But some school boards are yet to make the shift.
• Slow progress for four-year UG degrees: Central universities are rolling out NEP’s idea of four-year undergraduate degrees with multiple exit options, and Kerala has followed.
• Mother tongue in classrooms: NEP encourages the use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction till at least class 5. CBSE has asked schools to begin this from pre-primary to class 2, with classes 3-5 retaining the option of staying or switching. NCERT is working on textbooks in more Indian languages.

What’s stuck and why

• Three-language formula remains a sticking point: NEP proposes three languages in school, at least two of them Indian. But Tamil Nadu, which follows a Tamil-English model, sees this as an attempt to impose Hindi.
• Teacher education overhaul hasn’t happened: The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, due in 2021, is yet to be released.
• UGC’s proposed successor delayed: A 2018 draft bill proposed scrapping the UGC Act and replacing it with an umbrella Higher Education Commission of India (HECI).
• No breakfast in schools yet: NEP recommends breakfast along with midday meals. But in 2021, the Finance Ministry rejected the Education Ministry’s proposal to add breakfast for pre-primary and elementary classes.
• Policy divide between Centre and states: Some states have pushed back against key NEP provisions. Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have refused to sign MoUs with the Centre to set up PM-SHRI schools, citing clauses that require full adoption of NEP.
• Tamil Nadu opposes both the three-language formula and four-year UG structure. Kerala and Tamil Nadu argue that since education is on the Concurrent List, the Centre cannot mandate these changes unilaterally.
• The Centre has withheld Samagra Shiksha funds from these states, saying the money is tied to NEP-linked reforms.

Conclusion

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2024 is a big step for India’s education. It builds on the 2020 policy, focusing on access, equity, and quality. It changes school structures and emphasizes skills.

 

EDITORIAL 2: A compass, not a verdict

Context

For once, a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague is making waves in Hyderabad.

ICJ’s opinion

• In a rare instance of policy resonance, the advisory opinion on climate change delivered by the 15-judge panel of the ICJ on July 23 has sparked conversation far beyond decision-makers in India.
• The ICJ’s unanimous declaration of climate change as an existential threat is being discussed not only in think tanks in Delhi and boardrooms in Mumbai, but also among environmentally conscious students in Patancheru, Telangana.

The case

• The case was initiated by Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation with a population of just 3,00,000.
• In March 2023, it led a coalition of small island states to secure consensual approval from the United Nations General Assembly to ask the ICJ two questions: What are states legally required to do to address climate change, and what are the consequences if they do not fulfil these duties?
• Over 130 countries joined as co-sponsors.

India’s stance

• India did not join, but it did not oppose it either.This cautious posture reflects India’s complex position in global climate diplomacy.
• India’s hesitation did not stem from disinterest. Rather, it reflected clear-eyed realism.
• As a developing nation still working to ensure universal access to electricity, healthcare, and employment, India undertakes a difficult balancing act.
• Unlike industrialised countries, India has not benefited from centuries of fossil fuel-powered growth.
• Although its total emissions are rising, per capita emissions remain among the lowest globally. Many households still rely on biomass for cooking and face irregular power supply.
• Despite these constraints, India has taken ambitious climate actions. By 2030, it aims for half its electricity to come from renewables.
• Emissions intensity has declined, afforestation has expanded, and electric buses now run in several Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad.
• India leads the International Solar Alliance and the Mission LiFE campaignpromoting sustainable consumption. During its G20 presidency, it ensured that climate finance remained in the global spotlight.
• These are not peripheral gestures. They are structural shifts. By any fair measure, India has done more with less.
• By contrast, Canada emits seven times more per capita and continues to expand its oil sands production.
• Australia, a major coal exporter, sets modest domestic targets while profiting from global emissions.
• Considering historical responsibility, economic capacity, and present-day ambition, India’s efforts stand out.
• Yet, the sweeping ICJ opinion, though not legally binding,will have consequences for India. It draws not only on climate treaties but also on the United Nations Charter, customary international law, the law of the sea, and human rights law.
• The Court affirms that states have obligations to prevent environmental harm,reduce emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and cooperate internationally. These duties are no longer moral appeals. They carry legal weight.

The ruling

• The Court also ruled that climate change violates rights to life, health, and housing.States must act based on the best available science, adopt ambitious national plans, and may be legally compelled to strengthen them.
• Failure to act could invite claims for climate damage.Subsidies for polluting fuels are now within legal scrutiny.
• The opinion does not just outline obligations, it opens the door to legal consequences.
• India has long argued that those who contributed most to climate change must do more to address it.
• The ICJ has now given that argument legal grounding. It will bolster developing countries in global negotiations.

The challenges

• Yet, the new legal terrain raises at least three public policy challenges for India.
• First is legal preparedness.Indian courts already interpret the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life.
• The ICJ ruling may spur a wave of litigation demanding stronger climate action or even compensation. Anticipating such claims will be vital for legal and policy stability.
• Second is enforcement. India’s environmental laws are strong on paper but patchy in practice.
• Pollution control agencies remain underfunded and compliance varies widely across different states and sectors.
• Third is the issue of fossil fuel subsidies.These remain crucial for economically vulnerable households, especially for cooking gas and kerosene. But they also delay the shift to cleaner alternatives.
• India must rethink how it provides support to the poor without locking them into polluting fuels. That will demand both financial resources and policy innovation.
• The diplomatic challenge lies in aligning climate ambition with fairness. India must continue taking climate action while defending the context of its development needs. Climate justice must not become a new form of injustice.

Conclusion

The milestone ICJ opinion is not just a verdict from afar, but a compass. It signals the end of voluntary climate ambition and invites all countries to chart a harder, but fairer course. For India, the challenge now is to align duty with dignity and ambition with justice.