Event Report
Aashnaa Mehta
As part of the IMPRI 5th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2024-25, the IMPRI Center for ICT for Development (CICTD) at the IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, hosted the session on “Education, S&T, R&D, and Union Budget 2024-25.” This session delved into the intersection of Education, Science & Technology, Research & Development, and the fiscal roadmap outlined in the Interim Union Budget of 2024.
The general highlights of the budget included the announcement of budgetary allocations and schemes for education. The Finance Minister unveiled the PM’s package worth 1.48 lakh crores, focusing on education, employment, and skilling. Five schemes were introduced under this package: three focused on employment and incentives, with the first scheme for first-time job seekers, the second for job creation in manufacturing, and the third for employee support. The fourth and fifth schemes were education-related, including a skilling program for upgrading industrial training institutes and an internship initiative in the top 500 companies, with monthly stipends and state government coordination.
Additionally, the Finance Minister announced financial support of up to 10 lakh rupees for domestic institutions and provisions for setting up working women’s hostels. The budget for 2024-25 saw an increase in allocations for pre-existing schemes such as Samagra Shiksha, the Strengthening Teaching-Learning and Results for States (STARS) program, and PM Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI). The Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) was renamed to Pradhan Mantri Chhatr Shiksha Abhiyan (PM CSA), and the Post-Matric Scholarship for SCs, PM Young Achievers Scholarship Award Scheme for Vibrant India (PM YASASVI) for OBCs, EBCs, and DNTs, and PM SHIKSHA Pran for PM Ujjwala and AIA model residential schools (EMRS) also saw increased budgets.
Prof Sachidanand Sinha, Former Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi in his opening remarks, provided an overarching analysis of the budget allocations for the fiscal year 2024-2025. He began by reflecting on the historical patterns of budget allocations and expenditures, noting a recurring issue: the inability to fully utilize the allocated funds. This observation, according to Prof Sinha, is consistent with past budgets, including the interim budget presented a few months prior.
He emphasized that despite the allocations made, actual spending has frequently fallen short. This trend suggests a gap between financial planning and execution. Prof Sinha proposed that rather than delving into specific figures, it would be more beneficial to take a general view of the budgetary allocations to understand the broader financial landscape and address systemic issues. His remarks set the stage for a more comprehensive discussion on the implications of budgetary allocations and the effectiveness of their implementation across various sectors.
Prof Anita Rampal, Former Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Delhi, provided an in-depth analysis of the budget, considering its implications for education in the context of the upcoming elections. She emphasized that election years often prompt introspection and analysis of trends, addressing aspirations that need to be met. To illustrate her points, she compared the education manifestos of two major political parties: the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC).
Prof Rampal noted that the BJP’s manifesto on education was brief and leaned heavily on neoliberal rhetoric. The focus was on aligning higher education curricula with industry needs, promoting skill development, and emphasizing learning outcomes. In terms of school education, the manifesto highlighted strengthening existing programs such as the PM SHRI (Prime Minister Schools for Rising India) initiative, which aimed to transform certain government and private schools into exemplary schools. However, she criticized this approach as merely a renaming exercise without substantial changes. The BJP’s emphasis on digital education for access and the conditional co-opting of states into existing programs was also highlighted. Prof Rampal pointed out that some states, like West Bengal and Punjab, refused to sign agreements due to funding issues, leading to withheld educational funds, which raises concerns about federalism in education.
In contrast, the INC’s manifesto linked education with youth issues, calling for an extension of the Right to Education and a review of centralized exams like NEET and CUET. The INC also proposed community colleges in every block, the right to apprenticeship, and the restoration and increase of fellowships, particularly for marginalized communities. Additionally, the INC emphasized academic freedom in higher education institutions and the importance of restoring vacancies and ensuring non-contractual positions for teachers.
Prof Rampal then turned her attention to the current state of education expenditure, noting a decline from 2.9% of GDP ten years ago to 2.7% today. She criticized the increased involvement of non-state actors, particularly corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, which she viewed as a push towards privatization. She argued that this shift detracts from the focus on equity and tends to emphasize efficiency and excellence. The digital push in education was another major concern. Prof Rampal highlighted the introduction of the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAR) and the Academic Bank of Credit, which could record academic credentials from a young age to adulthood. She pointed out the potential issues with privacy and the ad hoc nature of gig economy-like education models. Additionally, she criticized the inclusion of Indian knowledge systems in the national curriculum framework without clear academic standards, which could lead to a diluted educational experience.
Prof. Binod Khadria, Former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, offered a detailed evaluation of the recent budget, focusing on education, science and technology (S&T), and research and development (R&D). Prof. Khadria emphasized the interconnections between education, S&T, and R&D, stressing the need for a seamless progression from primary to higher education. He highlighted the importance of adequately preparing students at the primary level to ensure they are ready for higher education, which is crucial for the development of the 18 to 24 age group—a key demographic for India’s future.
He also addressed regional disparities, particularly in the Northeast. Despite the Finance Minister’s mention of the Northeast, its allocation increased marginally from ₹5,892 crore to ₹5,900 crore, barely keeping pace with inflation. This minimal increase raises concerns about the government’s commitment to regional development and addressing the unique challenges of the Northeast. Prof. Khadria emphasized the need for education policies tailored to regional needs. The lack of recent census data, with the last one conducted in 2011, hampers effective planning and resource allocation. While projections up to 2036 are available, they are insufficient for comprehensive planning. He stressed the importance of understanding demographic composition and growth patterns to accurately address education and employment needs.
He also highlighted the need for a dynamic approach to the new education policy (NEP) 2020, suggesting it should evolve over time and vary across states to address local specificities. For instance, the Northeast, with its rich resources like water, wind, and human willpower, requires a focused strategy to harness these for development. He explained that education forms human capital, while employment represents its utilization, and planning should ensure a balance between these aspects, considering the full spectrum from vocational training to higher education and professional fields.
Prof. Nalin Bharti, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Patna, offered an in-depth analysis of the budget’s focus on technology, research, and development. As the IPR Chair Professor appointed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, he highlighted several key points.
He began by noting that India’s gross expenditure on R&D is around 0.7% of GDP, significantly lower than the global average of 1.8%. He compared this to other countries, with China at 2.5%, the United States at 3.46%, Germany at 3.13%, France at 2.2%, Japan at 3.34%, South Korea at 4.93%, and Singapore close to 2%. This discrepancy raises concerns about India’s ability to meet its ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’ goals. Prof. Bharti linked the low R&D expenditure to the reduction in higher education funding, emphasizing that current investments will only yield results in the long term. He stressed the importance of immediate and substantial R&D funding to ensure future growth and innovation.
He noted the record number of patent filings in 2023, with close to one lakh applications. However, this achievement contrasts with the low R&D expenditure.Prof. Bharti drew from his research on privatization, pointing out that while private partnerships are essential, successful models in other countries involved significant government support. He stressed that for India to attract and sustain private investment, there must be robust public investment in education and health, creating a skilled and healthy workforce. He discussed the substantial allocation of 50,000 crore rupees over five years for the National Research Foundation, aimed at fostering research collaboration and enhancing India’s R&D ecosystem. Policymakers must consider historical context, base infrastructure, and international experiences to lead the country in a new direction.
Prof. Mona Khare, Professor and Head, Department of Educational Finance, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, discussed the implications of the budget on the education sector. She noted that while there appears to be an increase in the allocation for education, these figures must be analyzed in context. This includes considering the percentage allocations, the trends in economic growth, and the alignment with the new education policy’s objectives.
Prof. Khare emphasized that we are now in the fourth year of implementing the new education policy, which is based on four key pillars: enrollment, equity, excellence, and employability. She pointed out that the gross amount allocated to education now also includes provisions for employment and skilling, reflecting the policy’s emphasis on connecting education with job creation and skill development. However, a deeper analysis reveals that while the absolute allocations have increased, the percentage shares tell a different story. Compared to the budget estimates, there is only a marginal increase of about 4.2% for school education and less than 1% for higher education. Prof. Khare highlighted that this trend is concerning given the rising enrollments in higher education and the declining per-student availability of public funds. This decline affects both the quality and equity of education.
While the provision for internships through CSR funds is a positive step, Prof. Khare emphasized the need for concrete implementation plans and better collaboration between industry and academia. The focus on research and innovation in science, technology, AI, and robotics is commendable, but the allocation for social sciences and general academic disciplines remains insufficient. This imbalance needs to be addressed to ensure holistic development in education.
Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay, Professor and Chairperson, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi emphasized the importance of understanding the budgetary allocation for higher education within the context of the National Education Policy (NEP). He noted that the NEP positions education as a key component of economic policy, while also recognizing its role in fostering an inclusive society and political stability.
He identified three main components of the NEP’s focus: skill education, research and innovation, and positioning India’s science and technology on the global stage. The emphasis on skill education aims to address the growing gap between education and employment due to rapid technological advancements, with the budget reflecting this focus. However, he raised concerns about the distribution of funding within the higher education sector. The NEP’s categorization of universities into research universities, teaching universities, and autonomous degree-granting colleges could lead to unequal funding allocations, potentially favoring research universities. He emphasized the need for balanced funding to support broad-based science and not just elite institutions.
Furthermore, he discussed the challenges posed by the differentiation within the higher education system, such as the public-private divide and the varying fiscal capacities of states. He called for a reconsideration of the role of education in building an inclusive society. He warned that while the focus on skill development, research, and internationalization might yield some benefits, the overall inclusivity and equitable development of the higher education system could be at risk due to inadequate and uneven budgetary allocations.
Dr. Y. Suresh Reddy, Director, SRF Foundation, Gurgaon emphasized the importance of a comprehensive perspective when examining the annual budget, especially in light of the Right to Education Act of 2019 and the National Education Policy of 2020. These key policies are instrumental in shaping school education, and it is crucial to ensure that the RTE standards are met nationwide. The implementation of the NEP, which includes numerous interventions at the school level, must also be scrutinized to ensure its effectiveness.
He highlighted the foundational levels of education, particularly Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) and primary schooling. A robust foundation is essential for students transitioning to middle and secondary education, fostering their learning and development. Dr. Reddy pointed out that the academic performance, as indicated by national surveys and assessments, reflects how well these foundations are established. The pandemic, however, exposed significant digital disparities, with many government school students lacking the necessary online learning infrastructure. Despite some progress, the situation has not drastically improved.
Firstly, he stressed the need to determine whether the budget changes are incremental or transformational. Despite the goal of allocating 6% of GDP to education, current spending remains between 2.7% and 2.9%. A substantial increase is necessary for meaningful improvement. Secondly, he addressed the issue of allocation and spending. While allocation may be inadequate, efficient spending is equally crucial. Often, budgets are underutilized until the end of the financial year, necessitating better governance and timely utilization to avoid wastage.
Thirdly, rationalizing resources, particularly in underutilized schools, can save funds that can be redirected to improve education quality without compromising access. Lastly, augmenting resources beyond government contributions is essential. Leveraging CSR funds (around ₹30,000 crores annually, with 30% allocated to education and skilling) and philanthropic funding can provide significant support. Encouraging foreign contributions and utilizing new financial instruments like outcome-based financing and social stock exchanges can further bolster resources.
Addressing these areas—increased allocation, efficient spending, rationalizing resources, and augmenting funding—can significantly improve education quality and accessibility, aligning with the goals of the RTE and NEP.
The analysis of the Union Budget 2024-25 within the context of education, science and technology, and research and development reveals a mixed outlook. While the budget includes commendable initiatives and increased allocations in certain areas, the real growth rates when adjusted for inflation are modest, raising concerns about their adequacy to meet ambitious national goals. Regional disparities, particularly in the Northeast, highlight the need for more targeted policies and funding. The emphasis on aligning education with employment and skill development is positive, but the implementation and effective utilization of these allocations will be critical. A dynamic, region-specific approach to education policy and a balanced focus on human capital formation and utilization are essential for achieving long-term developmental objectives.
Acknowledgement- This article was written by Aashnaa Mehta, Research Intern at IMPRI, who is currently pursuing her Bachelor’s in Political Science.
