Five years of NEP 2020 show gains in flexibility, digital learning, and curriculum reform—but key goals like student mobility and autonomy remain unmet.
Five years after the launch of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, India’s higher education system has witnessed important shifts—but progress has been uneven. Approved by the Union Cabinet in July 2020, the NEP aimed to make India a global leader in knowledge and innovation. So far, it has brought notable changes like flexible curricula, the promotion of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), and new institutional models. But other reforms, especially those related to student mobility and institutional autonomy, are still lagging behind.
The recently released ‘QS I-GAUGE Implementation Report’—based on inputs from 165 higher education institutions (HEIs) across 24 states and union territories—provides a snapshot of what’s working and what’s not.
A Clear Win: Flexible, Multidisciplinary Curriculum
Among the most visible successes of NEP 2020 has been the shift away from rigid academic silos. Nearly 90% of the surveyed institutions now offer multidisciplinary programs, often combining general education with vocational elements. Students today are more likely to study diverse subjects under one academic roof—an option previously restricted by disciplinary boundaries.
Environmental awareness has also taken root, with eco-focused courses becoming a regular feature. Meanwhile, values-based education is on the rise: about 62% of institutions now offer courses like Mulya Pravah 2.0 to promote ethical reasoning and social responsibility.
A Stalled Reform: Multiple Entry and Exit Options
One of the most student-friendly ideas in NEP—allowing multiple entry and exit points during higher education—has not gained much traction. Despite its potential to democratize education access and cater to diverse learner needs, only 36% of HEIs have actually adopted this system.
Even fewer (64%) have fully implemented the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC)—a critical tool for tracking student credits and ensuring flexibility. Without it, switching disciplines or taking academic breaks becomes difficult, defeating the very purpose of the reform.
Mental Health Support: Basic Services Exist, Depth Lacking
The NEP placed strong emphasis on student well-being, and on paper, the results are promising. Around 86% of institutions say they have student support centres to help address emotional and psychological challenges.
But when it comes to more advanced mental health support, the infrastructure appears thin. Only 14% of institutions have formal partnerships with specialized institutes like NIMHANS or AIIMS—a clear gap between vision and execution. This lack of collaboration is compounded by insufficient faculty training: just 64% of institutions said their teachers undergo refresher training in counselling or mentoring. As a result, many support systems may be ill-equipped to handle serious mental health concerns.
Professors of Practice: Industry-Academia Link Still Weak
One of NEP’s most innovative proposals was to bring professionals from industries into classrooms as ‘Professors of Practice’ (PoPs) to teach practical, real-world skills. But the uptake has been minimal—only 14% of HEIs have appointed such professors.
Industry collaboration on curriculum design is also limited, with just 19% of institutions involving professionals in creating course content. While internships have become almost universal (offered by 98% of institutions with credit), meaningful long-term engagement between academia and industry remains rare.
Institutional Autonomy: Progress Slow, Barriers Persistent
Another major goal of the NEP was to grant greater autonomy to higher education institutions so they could adapt quickly and innovate freely. Yet, only 22% of HEIs currently enjoy autonomous status.
The hurdles are familiar—financial dependence (cited by 153 institutions), bureaucratic delays (143), and limited internal capacity (131). Without autonomy, institutions struggle to revise curricula, launch interdisciplinary programs, or form meaningful international partnerships—key components of NEP’s vision for globally competitive universities.
Global Outlook: Ambition Outpaces Reality
NEP 2020 sought to position India as a global academic hub. But the internationalisation of Indian higher education is still a work in progress.
Only 41% of institutions have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with foreign universities. Just 33% have reserved seats for international students, and only 39% report having facilities specifically designed to host them. Faculty-level international collaboration is also limited—just 45% of teachers engage in joint research or teaching with global peers. While the ambition for global integration is strong, it needs to be backed by better infrastructure, smoother regulation, and greater funding.
Indian Knowledge Systems: Symbolic Support, Practical Gaps
The NEP has strongly encouraged the revival of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)—from traditional medicine to Sanskrit and ancient sciences. Some institutions have responded, offering electives in these areas. But the report reveals that the rollout has been patchy.
Only 38% of HEIs offer IKS courses for credit, and just 36% run short-term certificate programs in these fields. Even more telling is the fact that only 8% have appointed ‘Kala Gurus’, or traditional scholars, to lead this work. Institutions cite a shortage of trained faculty, lack of clarity on curriculum design, and infrastructural constraints as major roadblocks.
Knowledge Clusters: A Great Idea Awaiting Scale
Another NEP goal was to create ‘knowledge clusters’—collaborative research ecosystems where multiple universities and research centres pool resources. But most institutions haven’t joined this movement.
About 61% of those surveyed said they are not part of any such cluster. Reasons include infrastructure limitations (138 institutions), funding shortages (140), and mismatched institutional cultures (123). Collaboration with regional R&D bodies is also limited, with only 64% of institutions actively working with local research organisations.
Digital Learning: High Uptake, But Equity Gaps Remain
One of the brightest outcomes of NEP so far has been the rapid adoption of digital education. A strong 96% of institutions now use platforms like SWAYAM, DIKSHA, and SWAYAM PRABHA. About 94% have invested in digital infrastructure, and 85% offer training to faculty to develop online content.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are accepted for academic credit in 72% of institutions, and online learning has become more mainstream. However, issues of equity persist. Only 28% of institutions offer two-year PG diplomas through open and distance modes—an option that could help underserved communities access higher education. Moreover, integrating MOOCs with formal degree programs is still in the early stages, and standardized assessments for online content remain a challenge.
Looking Ahead: Progress With Potholes
NEP 2020 has undoubtedly shifted how India approaches higher education. Several new public institutions—such as the Indian Institute of Heritage and multiple Central Tribal Universities—have been launched. Digital learning is growing, and there is greater awareness around student well-being and interdisciplinary education.
However, as the QS I-GAUGE report makes clear, progress has been inconsistent. While the vision is strong, execution is still catching up. Key obstacles like faculty shortages, financial constraints, lack of autonomy, and limited regulatory clarity continue to hold back full-scale implementation.
For NEP’s ambitious goals to truly take root, the coming years must focus not just on policy—but on ground-level action, adequate funding, and a stronger push for collaboration across sectors.
Also Read: SC Mandates Mental Health Rules in Schools & Coaching Centres
New NCERT Class 8 vocational book teaches carpentry, hydroponics, home automation