Event Report
Mannat Ghumman
IMPRI #PolicyWebTalk recently organized a nine-day panel discussion on the Union Budget 2025-26 as part of its 6th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of the Interim Union Budget 2025-26. On February 3, 2025, the Center for ICT for Development (CICTD), IMPRI hosted a session on “Education, Science & Technology (S&T), Research & Development (R&D) and Union Budget 2025-26.” The discussion focused on budget allocations, policy shifts, and their impact on India’s knowledge economy.
The session was chaired and moderated by Prof. Sachidanand Sinha, Visiting Professor at IMPRI and Former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. The panel featured experts from academia, policy research, and advocacy, offering critical insights into the challenges and opportunities in education and R&D funding. Panelists included Dr. Y. Suresh Reddy (Director, SRF Foundation), Prof. Binod Khadria (Former Professor, JNU), Prof. Mona Khare (Head, Department of Educational Finance, NIEPA), Prof. Nalin Bharti (Professor, IIT Patna), Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay (Chairperson, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, JNU), Dr. Protiva Kundu (Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability), Adv. Anubha Shrivastava Sahai (President, India Wide Parents Association), and Prof. Rupamanjari Ghosh (Former Vice Chancellor, Shiv Nadar University). The discussion critically analyzed budgetary trends in education, the declining real value of allocations, and concerns over underfunding in research. Experts debated the balance between public and private investments, the need for better fund utilization, and the future of India’s education and innovation ecosystem.
As the Chair and Moderator of the session on Education, Science & Technology (S&T), Research & Development (R&D), and the Union Budget 2025-26, Prof. Sachidanand Sinha provided a comprehensive synthesis of the key takeaways from the panellists. He highlighted the overarching concern regarding the marginal decline in the education sector’s budget allocation, pointing out that when adjusted for inflation, the real expenditure on education has effectively decreased. Drawing from Prof. Binod Khadria’s analysis, he noted the widening gap between government priorities, where commerce and industry have seen a substantial boost while education has been relatively overlooked. Prof. Sinha emphasized that this shift in allocation reflects a broader economic narrative, one that increasingly favors market-driven mechanisms over direct public investment in knowledge and skill development. He acknowledged Dr. Protiva Kundu’s concerns regarding the financial burden on states and the underutilization of allocated funds, particularly in flagship schemes meant to enhance accessibility and inclusivity in education.
On the research and development front, Prof. Sinha reiterated the panellists’ concerns about India’s continued underinvestment in foundational sciences and higher education research. He drew attention to Prof. Rupamanjari Ghosh’s critique of the fragmented approach to scientific funding, where ambitious policy announcements are often not backed by adequate implementation strategies. While the budget emphasizes AI, semiconductor manufacturing, and digital transformation, Prof. Sinha stressed that these initiatives cannot thrive without significant investments in basic research, infrastructure, and skilled personnel. Echoing Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay’s insights, he pointed out the growing reliance on loan-based financing for educational institutions, which risks turning universities into financially strained enterprises rather than centers of academic excellence. Additionally, he addressed the concerns raised by Prof. Mona Khare about the increasing role of private sector funding in education and the structural bias in budgetary allocations favoring STEM fields over social sciences and humanities.
Summarizing the broader implications of the discussion, Prof. Sinha underscored the need for a more balanced and sustainable approach to education and research financing. He acknowledged Dr. Y. Suresh Reddy’s perspective on the challenges faced by rural and underprivileged students in accessing quality education, particularly in the context of digital and vocational training initiatives. He also reflected on Adv. Anubha Shrivastava Sahai’s concerns about the closure of government schools and the declining reach of public education systems, emphasizing that these issues require urgent policy interventions. Lastly, he reinforced Prof. Nalin Bharti’s argument that India’s ambition to become a global knowledge hub must be matched with real financial commitments, rather than being driven solely by market forces. His concluding remarks tied these insights to the broader vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, cautioning that without sustained investment in education and R&D, the country’s long-term economic and social development goals may remain aspirational rather than achievable.
Prof. Binod Khadria’s addressed the overall budget figures, he critically analyzed the 4% increase in the total budget from ₹48 lakh crore to ₹50 lakh crore and the education sector’s allocation, which saw a marginal decline from ₹1,28,000 crore last year to ₹1,25,000 crore this year. He pointed out that, when adjusted for inflation (conservatively estimated at 5%), the supposed increase in the budget translates to an actual decline in real terms. This reduction in educational spending, from 2.6% to 2.5% of the total budget, raises concerns about the government’s commitment to the sector. He juxtaposed this with the substantial 33% increase in allocations for commerce and industry, which, even after accounting for inflation, remains significantly higher than that of education. The disparity, he argued, underscores a shift in priorities that could have long-term implications for the country’s knowledge economy.
Prof. Khadria also shed light on the budget’s broader vision, particularly the focus on four key economic drivers—agriculture, MSMEs, private sector investment, and exports. He lauded the finance minister’s imaginative approach in linking agriculture with nutrition and public health, emphasizing the role of protein sources like pulses and fisheries in national well-being. He stressed that robust health and education systems are interlinked, as good health is fundamental to quality education and productivity. However, he noted contradictions between the budget’s stated objectives and the findings of the Economic Survey, which highlighted deregulation as a priority. While the government advocates for strengthening the private sector’s role in R&D and academia, the lack of a clear roadmap raises concerns. He emphasized that while higher education institutions, including IITs, have expanded their infrastructure and student intake, the crucial question remains—are these graduates being absorbed into meaningful employment? The growing trend of Indian engineers seeking opportunities abroad, particularly in countries like Germany, Japan, and Israel, suggests an employment crisis that the budget does not adequately address.
Concluding his remarks, Prof. Khadria critically examined the government’s economic narrative, particularly in relation to inflation. He highlighted the chief economic advisor’s assessment that food price inflation stood at 8%, which was then adjusted to 5% by excluding onion, potato, and tomato—staples of the Indian diet. This, he quipped, was reminiscent of historical economic absurdities, questioning the reliability of such statistical manipulations. Despite acknowledging some innovative aspects of the budget, he argued that its long-term success hinges on a well-defined roadmap for execution, especially in education and employment. The target of a ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’—envisioning universal access to quality education, full-skilled labor participation, and meaningful employment for women—remains aspirational unless backed by clear, actionable strategies. While the budget reflects a shift in economic priorities, the panel discussion underscored the urgent need to ensure that the education sector receives adequate funding to contribute effectively to the nation’s development goals.
Dr. Protiva Kundu, began by providing an overview of the budget, noting that the total allocation for the fiscal year was around 51 lakh crore, with the economy projected to grow at a rate of 10.1%. She highlighted that while the total receipt side had increased by 7%, the tax-to-GDP ratio remained stagnant at 12%. In education, 61% of the allocated budget was directed towards school education, while 39% was set aside for higher education. However, she pointed out that despite an absolute increase in the budget, its share of the GDP had declined, with public education spending currently at 3.8% of GDP—well below the 6% target. Dr. Kundu emphasized the growing financial burden on states due to shifting responsibilities in the education sector and the challenges they face in revenue mobilization.
Dr. Kundu then delved into the budgetary trends within school education, noting that the largest share of funds was directed towards autonomous institutions such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, and PM Shri schools. While flagship schemes like Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan received funding, she highlighted concerns over the increasing exclusivity of spending rather than a broader focus on universalizing education. The budget for PM Shri schools saw a 24% increase, with a target of expanding the number of such schools, but she raised concerns over underutilization of funds, citing the inability to fully spend the allocated budget in previous years. Additionally, she pointed out the challenges of financing education through the education cess, noting that significant amounts remain unspent, as revealed in reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The issue of inflation was another pressing concern, especially in schemes like PM Poshan, where unit costs have been revised but still remain insufficient to meet the needs of students. Dr. Kundu questioned the inclusivity of the budget, particularly regarding its impact on marginalized students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and minority communities.
In the final segment of her address, Dr. Kundu analyzed scholarship allocations and the effectiveness of social sector interventions. She highlighted major gaps in spending within the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, where funds allocated for crucial scholarships were either underutilized or surrendered. The post-matric scholarship program, for instance, had a target of 64.69 lakh students but covered only 28 lakh, while the pre-matric scholarship program fell significantly short of its intended reach. She expressed concerns over delays in fund disbursement, bureaucratic hurdles, and inefficiencies in implementation that prevent marginalized students from fully benefiting from these schemes. The situation in the Ministry of Minority Affairs was even more concerning, with parliamentary reports indicating that no scholarships had been approved since 2021-22. While the Ministry of Tribal Affairs showed some improvements, with increased budget allocations and new schemes, the overall spending patterns raised serious questions about the government’s commitment to inclusive education. Dr. Kundu concluded by stressing the need for a more equitable distribution of resources, improved fiscal planning, and effective policy interventions to ensure that education financing truly serves the needs of all students, particularly those from vulnerable communities.
Prof. Rupamanjari Ghosh, emphasized that while education has been a consistent focus in national policies, the approach towards science and technology funding remains inadequate. The vision for a knowledge-driven economy, which is essential to transform India’s demographic dividend into a real advantage, is not reflected in the allocations. She pointed out that though the budget mentions many promising initiatives, it falls short in addressing the fundamental gaps in research infrastructure, fellowship funding, and innovation-driven education. The budgetary allocations for R&D are not just about the quantum of funds but about how they are distributed and utilized, and unfortunately, year after year, inefficiencies in implementation persist. She stressed that technology alone is not a solution; it must be paired with deep investment in physical infrastructure and foundational research. Without significant investment in laboratories, physical sciences, and research fellowships, the country will struggle to keep up with global scientific advancements.
One of the major concerns she highlighted was the limited focus on physical sciences and engineering research, particularly in emerging technologies like quantum computing, nuclear energy, and semiconductors. While the government has announced missions and budget allocations, she questioned the effectiveness of these investments, noting that India is significantly lagging behind other nations. For instance, while the world is rapidly advancing in nuclear energy and quantum technologies, India’s targets for nuclear energy production remain modest, and its investment in quantum research is not translating into tangible progress. She cited examples from past years where ambitious programs were announced but failed due to a lack of proper execution and monitoring. The semiconductor manufacturing initiative, for instance, has seen large investments, but the actual progress remains questionable. Similarly, while there is excitement about artificial intelligence (AI) and digital innovation, without robust physical research facilities and well-trained scientists, these technologies will not have the expected multiplier effect on the economy. She pointed out that India must move beyond policy announcements and focus on building strong foundational research ecosystems, ensuring that budgets are utilized efficiently, and bridging the gap between policy intent and actual outcomes.
A key takeaway from her speech was the need for a serious overhaul of how scientific research and education are integrated into national development. She expressed deep concern over the lack of a structured approach to data collection and analysis in education and research funding. Without clear records on how research funds are spent, whether education technology programs are effective, or how well new scientific initiatives are performing, it becomes difficult to measure impact of course-correcting policy decisions. She criticized the absence of accountability mechanisms and called for a systematic method of tracking the effectiveness of scientific investments. Furthermore, she stressed that while digital education tools have become popular, they should not replace hands-on, physical learning experiences, especially in science and engineering. There is an urgent need to build well-equipped labs in higher secondary schools, ensure a sufficient number of trained teachers in universities, and promote deep research in fundamental sciences rather than just focusing on short-term technological trends. If these gaps are not addressed, she warned, India risks falling further behind in global scientific competitiveness, turning its demographic dividend into a missed opportunity rather than an advantage.
Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay, highlightthe crucial role of education in shaping a society, emphasizing that education is not merely a sectoral issue but the most important pillar of social and economic development. He noted that the government’s goal of achieving a 50% gross enrollment ratio by 2035, including vocational and skill-based education, is an ambitious target, but the financial and institutional mechanisms to achieve this remain questionable. Education’s role in the economy operates through two primary channels: skill development and knowledge generation within universities. However, he pointed out that while the focus on skills has increased, the institutional capacity for research and innovation remains underfunded, leading to an imbalance in India’s educational priorities. The persistent underinvestment in university research and the weakening of foundational sciences threaten to erode the very institutions that produce future innovators. He stressed that while government policies emphasize individual skill-building, they fail to strengthen the institutions responsible for knowledge creation, which will ultimately impact India’s long-term economic and technological progress.
One of the major concerns he raised was the shift towards loan-based financing for educational institutions and research, which he sees as a troubling trend. The government, instead of increasing direct budgetary allocations, is pushing universities to rely on borrowed funds, corporate social responsibility (CSR) contributions, and faculty-driven fundraising. This approach, he argued, fundamentally alters the purpose of academic institutions, turning them into financially self-sustaining enterprises rather than centers of learning and research. He pointed out that this financial burden on universities is already visible in the declining quality of lab infrastructure and research facilities, with many institutions struggling to cover even their basic operational expenses. This financial model disproportionately impacts public universities, particularly those that are not among the elite institutions like IITs and IIMs, leading to widening inequalities within the higher education system. He expressed concerns over the increasing pressure on faculty members to generate external funding, which is now being considered a criterion for career progression under UGC guidelines. This shift, he warned, risks turning universities into corporate-style entities, where financial viability takes precedence over academic excellence and intellectual exploration.
Prof. Chattopadhyay also provided a critical analysis of the budgetary allocations for higher education, pointing out several inconsistencies. While there has been an increase in funding for digitalization and student financial aid, core research and development (R&D) funding remains stagnant. He was particularly perplexed by the complete elimination of budgetary allocation for certain public research programs, questioning whether this signals a deeper policy shift away from government-backed research in favor of private-sector-driven innovation. Despite government efforts to promote initiatives like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and start-up incubation, the foundation of higher education—strong science labs, technical education, and research fellowships—remains underfunded. He also highlighted disparities among states in terms of educational spending, arguing that state fiscal health must be factored into national education planning. He concluded by cautioning that while the government promotes lifelong learning, multidisciplinary education, and the Indian Knowledge System, there is a risk that the system may overwhelm students with an excessive focus on certification and credit accumulation rather than fostering genuine learning. In the end, he questioned whether current education policies are truly aimed at building an enlightened society or are simply economic tools designed to serve market-driven objectives.
Prof. Mona Khare, acknowledged the key concerns raised by previous speakers, particularly the real increase in budgetary allocations and the continuing issue of underutilization of funds, as highlighted in various audit reports. She argued that budgetary increases alone would not be enough to meet the aspirational goals of India’s education system unless they were accompanied by capacity building and institutional strengthening. Drawing attention to three critical dimensions—continuity, inclusivity, and employability—she stressed that while policies aim to position India as a global knowledge hub, the structural gaps in funding and policy implementation remain significant barriers. The increasing reliance on digitalization and technology integration, while necessary, risks widening the urban-rural and socio-economic divides, as many students from underprivileged backgrounds lack access to such resources. She also emphasized the expanding focus on medical education and vocational training, pointing out that while these initiatives are commendable, they may not be addressing the real needs of India’s labor market. A closer look at employment data suggests a growing participation of women in agriculture, a declining share of the services sector, and a stagnant manufacturing industry, which raises concerns about whether the current education and skilling programs are aligned with actual economic trends.
One of the most pressing concerns she raised was whether the education sector’s skilling initiatives are truly catering to the realities of India’s workforce. She highlighted the establishment of five national-level centers of excellence for skilling, which are expected to align with the “Make in India” and “Made for the World” initiatives. However, she questioned whether these programs adequately address the needs of the informal economy, which still constitutes a significant portion of India’s workforce. Many young workers are concentrated in industries such as construction, trade, hospitality, and logistics—sectors that are often left out of major skilling programs. She warned that if policies continue to prioritize high-end technological skills without addressing the employment needs of rural and economically disadvantaged students, the gap between formal and informal employment opportunities will only widen. Furthermore, she noted that the increasing role of the private sector in education, particularly at the school and higher education levels, is another crucial factor that cannot be ignored. As private institutions continue to enroll a larger share of students, there are growing concerns about affordability and access, particularly for students from marginalized communities. She also pointed out that even in areas where private funding is encouraged—such as research and development—budgetary allocations remain minimal, raising concerns about whether India’s ambitions to become a global knowledge hub are backed by sufficient investment.
Another critical issue she addressed was the allocation of research funding, which continues to be alarmingly low, making up less than 1% of the total education budget. While the government has been promoting various initiatives to internationalize higher education—such as the Study in India program and research fellowships—budgetary allocations for these programs have actually declined. This raises serious concerns about how India plans to establish itself as a leader in knowledge production when the financial commitment to research remains weak. She also highlighted that while financial aid for students has increased, the benefits remain skewed toward STEM and technical education, leaving students in social sciences and humanities with limited support. This, she argued, creates a structural bias in funding allocations that does not reflect the diverse needs of India’s student population. Lastly, she underscored the persistent problem of underutilization of funds, arguing that simply increasing allocations will not solve fundamental issues unless the efficiency of spending is improved. If the education budget continues to disproportionately serve only a small percentage of the student population while ignoring systemic inequities, the long-term goal of building a skilled and inclusive workforce will remain out of reach. She concluded by stressing that skill-building initiatives must be aligned with actual labor force distribution and industry growth patterns, ensuring that education serves both the economy and society rather than being reduced to a narrow market-driven exercise.
Adv. Anubha Shrivastava Sahai, expressed both appreciation and concern regarding the budget’s impact on the education sector. She acknowledged the government’s focus on expanding centers of excellence, increasing seats in IITs and medical colleges, and boosting funding for startups. These initiatives, she noted, were critical steps in meeting the rising demand for higher education opportunities. With the number of students appearing for JEE and NEET exams having surged from approximately 8–10 lakh in previous years to over 12 lakh and 25 lakh respectively, the need for increased seats in premier institutions is more pressing than ever. However, she raised a crucial question—will the allocated budget truly be sufficient to support central universities and ensure equitable access to quality education for all students, especially those in rural and marginalized communities? She emphasized that while the government has laid down an ambitious vision, the effectiveness of its execution remains uncertain, particularly in light of previous challenges in infrastructure development and faculty shortages. Additionally, she pointed out the concerning trend of school closures in states like Haryana and Rajasthan, where thousands of government schools have been shut down or merged, further limiting access to education for underprivileged children.
A major point of concern she highlighted was the need for greater allocation to the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, which currently serves around 17–20 crore students. She stressed that many children, especially those who dropped out during the COVID-19 pandemic, remain out of the school system, and the actual number may be even higher than reported. Without significant financial backing, the implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act remains inadequate, and many schools, particularly private-aided institutions that serve underprivileged students, are struggling due to insufficient government support. She cited the case of Maharashtra, where government orders restricting financial aid to private schools were challenged in courts, with the High Court and Supreme Court ruling in favor of the schools. This, she argued, underscores the necessity for the government to allocate more funds for RTE implementation, ensuring that students from economically weaker sections have access to quality education. Furthermore, while there has been a welcome increase in the number of Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) and Navodaya Vidyalayas (NVS), she insisted that a more substantial budget is required to accommodate the growing student population and bridge the gaps in public schooling.
While acknowledging the positive aspects of the budget, including initiatives like the Vidya Shakti scheme and digital infrastructure expansion, she warned that unless Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan receives greater focus, many students, particularly from marginalized communities, will be left out of these advancements. Digital inclusion is a commendable goal, but without ensuring foundational educational support, such initiatives may not reach those who need them most. She also touched upon concerns regarding middle-class families, noting that while the budget may offer certain benefits for them, affordability and accessibility to quality education remain key challenges. Overall, she deemed the budget to be a step in the right direction but stressed that it must be backed by stronger financial commitments, particularly towards public education. Her concluding appeal to the government was simple yet powerful—prioritize the holistic development of students, allocate more funds to inclusive education schemes, and ensure that every child, regardless of socio-economic background, has access to a quality learning environment.
Prof. Nalin Bharti, noted that the government has been consistently pushing for solar energy expansion, reiterating its commitment in this year’s budget. India’s ambitious goal of achieving 100 gigawatts of solar energy capacity by 2047 represents a transformative shift, positioning the country to match the current capacity of the United States. Prof. Bharti highlighted the importance of public sector-driven research in ensuring that these advancements align with national interests. He referenced research on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), noting that while India has signed multiple economic agreements, IPR applications have only surged in countries with strong intellectual property protections. This underscores the need for India to enhance its research ecosystem and streamline patent processes to attract innovation-driven investments.
Beyond energy and research, Prof. Bharti discussed the role of R&D in fostering innovation, particularly through the Prime Minister’s Fellowship for startups. He emphasized that for India to emerge as a global innovation hub, it must not only increase funding for research but also create an ecosystem conducive to startup growth. Drawing from discussions with Japanese pharmaceutical companies, he noted that foreign investors weigh cultural and social factors alongside economic indicators when deciding on investments. Issues such as multilingualism and dietary preferences influence their choices, revealing the complexities of attracting global capital. Prof. Bharti stressed that while economic reforms are crucial, addressing these softer elements could also enhance India’s investment appeal. Furthermore, he noted the paradox India faces between promoting exports and reducing import dependence, urging a balanced approach that fosters both economic self-reliance and global trade competitiveness.
Another critical aspect Prof. Bharti examined was the geographical disparity in budget benefits. While major cities like Mumbai and Chennai continue to attract top talent and investments, smaller cities like Patna are gradually gaining government attention. He pointed out that initiatives like the Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship, which offers 10,000 scholarships, are commendable but may inadvertently favor established institutions in metropolitan areas. Despite efforts to decentralize opportunities, students often prefer well-equipped research hubs like IIT Madras or IIT Mumbai over newer institutions. This highlights the need for regional infrastructure development to make second-tier cities equally attractive for academic and industrial growth. Prof. Bharti concluded by emphasizing the importance of strategic international partnerships and geopolitical considerations in shaping budgetary policies. He called for a holistic approach that integrates domestic economic priorities with global economic shifts, ensuring India remains competitive on multiple fronts.
Dr. Y. Suresh Reddy highlighted the extensive work undertaken by non-governmental organizations in implementing educational programs across 13 states and 34 locations, from Anganwadi centers to senior secondary schools. While acknowledging the increased budget allocation, he pointed out that the rise does not outpace inflation, thereby limiting its real impact. Dr. Reddy emphasized the push for Centers of Excellence at both the national and school levels, particularly through Atal Tinkering Labs, which have expanded significantly over the years. However, he raised concerns about the accessibility of these labs to students in rural areas, where mentorship and guidance remain limited. He stressed that setting up infrastructure is the easier part, but extracting value from such initiatives requires a strong foundation in electronics, mechatronics, and computer science—fields that many students, especially from government schools, may not have adequate exposure to.
A key challenge, according to Dr. Reddy, is the underfunding of traditional science labs, which could hinder fundamental education in physics, chemistry, and biology. He pointed out a gap in the National Education Policy’s (NEP) vision for vocational education at the middle and secondary school levels. While Atal Tinkering Labs may foster skills relevant to white-collar jobs, vocational training aimed at blue-collar employment remains an area that needs attention. The promotion of model schools like PMC Schools, Kendriya Vidyalayas, and Navodaya Vidyalayas is commendable, but he noted that even where funds are allocated, they are often not fully utilized. He stressed that the real issue lies not in allocation but in timely fund utilization, efficient governance, and proper school structuring. Dr. Reddy also highlighted that the push for artificial intelligence in education is a step in the right direction, but ensuring equitable access to digital resources remains a challenge, particularly in rural and underprivileged areas where infrastructure and internet connectivity are limited.
Dr. Reddy underscored the inefficiencies in school distribution and governance, particularly at the primary level, where many schools struggle with single-teacher classrooms and multi-grade teaching. He argued that rationalizing the school structure, rather than closing schools, is crucial to improving education quality. While consolidation of schools could improve student-teacher ratios, he cautioned against arbitrary closures, particularly in remote areas where transportation challenges persist. Instead, efficient allocation of teachers and resources is key to enhancing education outcomes. He pointed out that while government data on school enrollments exists, it does not always capture the actual number of children out of school, particularly in marginalized communities. Thus, he advocated for evidence-based decision-making to ensure efficient investments in primary education, balancing accessibility with quality improvements. Dr. Reddy’s insights underscored the need for a nuanced approach to education policy—one that prioritizes both infrastructure and human resource development, ensuring that investments translate into tangible learning outcomes.
Acknowledgment: This article was written by Mannat Ghumman, visiting researcher and assistant editor at IMPRI.
