Event Report
Pallavi Lad
The IMPRI Centre for ICT for Development (CICTD), IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, convened an online panel discussion on Education, Science & Technology, Research & Development and the Union Budget 2026–27 as part of IMPRI’s 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of the Union Budget 2026–27, which was held on February 8 at 10:30 a.m IST. The session brought together academic experts and policy voices to examine what the budget allocates as well as what it signals about the direction of India’s education and research ecosystem.
Opening and Welcome:
The discussion commenced with Arushi Pathania, a researcher at IMPRI, who introduced the chair and moderator of the program, Prof. Sachidanand Sinha, Visiting Professor at IMPRI and former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi.
She then introduced the distinguished panel of experts, which included:
- Prof Saumen Chattopadhyay, Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES), School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
- Dr Protiva Kundu, Consultant, Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP), Former Thematic Lead, Social Sectors at the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA).
- Prof Binod Khadria, President, Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT); Co-convener of Metropolis Asia-Pacific.
- Prof Rupamanjari Ghosh, Expert, Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India committees in Physical Sciences; Former Vice Chancellor of Shiv Nadar University, Delhi-NCR; Former Professor of Physics & Dean of School of Physical Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
- Prof Nalin Bharti, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Patna and Visiting Senior Fellow, IMPRI.
- Prof Mona Khare, Professor & Head, Department of Educational Finance; Director of University Grants Commission (UGC)– Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Centre, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), New Delhi, India.
The conveners of the programme were Dr Simi Mehta and Dr Arjun Kumar.
Chair’s Framing: Prof. Sachidanand Sinha:
Prof. Sinha began by welcoming the panel and noting the breadth of expertise assembled. He proposed that the discussion should begin with a clear outline of what the Union Budget contains for education, especially the two major segments of school education and higher education, and then extend to science and technology, research and development. He suggested that such a starting point would help the group move into finer issues, such as school closures, NEP objectives, and how budget reallocations may advance or constrain those objectives.
Following this, Team IMPRI and Arushi Pathania presented a brief overview of the Union Budget 2026–27, outlining the key allocations and flagship announcements across school education, higher education, science and technology, and research and development. This presentation provided the factual baseline for the discussion by mapping major budget heads, departmental allocations, and scheme-level priorities, particularly those linked to employability, infrastructure strengthening, STEM, and technology-enabled learning.
The IMPRI presentation began by stating that the Union Budget 2026–27 expands investment in education with emphasis on quality, employability, STEM, digital skills, and infrastructure expansion, aligning with the government’s stated vision of linking education to “employment and enterprise.”
Education: Total Allocation and Departmental Break-up:
The presentation stated that the total budget allocated to the education sector is ₹1.39 lakh crore, described as the “highest ever,” representing an 8.27% increase over the previous year. The Department of School Education and Literacy was allocated ₹83,562.26 crore (a 6.3% increase), and the Department of Higher Education was allocated ₹78,496.22 crore (an 11.28% increase) compared to 2025–26.
Allocations to Major Educational Bodies:
The presentation then listed budget allocations to major educational bodies, including a figure for Central Universities of ₹17,440 crore, indicating an increase of 4.49%. The presentation detailed institutional allocations to major bodies such as Central Universities (₹17,440 crore), the UGC, IITs, NITs, and IIMs, alongside scheme-based allocations including the MERIT scheme (₹300 crore), World Class Institutions (₹900 crore), PM-USHA (₹1,850 crore), the National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (₹1,250 crore), and expanded funding for PM-SETU, which focuses on upgrading ITIs.
She further highlighted new initiatives such as PM Research Chairs (₹200 crore) and additional AI Centres of Excellence (₹100 crore) aimed at strengthening technical education and attracting global research talent back to India. The presentation also drew attention to cross-sectoral and strategic technology commitments, including support for the India Semiconductor Mission 2.0 (₹1,000 crore), expansion of electronics manufacturing, emphasis on AVGC (Animation, Visual Effects, Gaming and Comics), veterinary and health infrastructure expansion, the establishment of one girls’ hostel per district for STEM education, five university townships near industrial corridors, and a high-powered Education to Employment and Enterprise Committee.
Together, these allocations were framed as reflecting the government’s emphasis on infrastructure creation, quality enhancement, employability, technological self-reliance, and strengthening the education-to-industry pipeline.
Arushi also highlighted the budget’s focus on strengthening national science and technology infrastructure, including proposals to upgrade and establish four major facilities: the National Large Solar Telescope, the National Large Optical Infrared Telescope, the Himalayan Chandra Telescope, and the COSMOS-II Planetarium. The presentation further outlined the launch of the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, aimed at producing semiconductor equipment and materials, designing full-stack Indian IP, and strengthening supply chains through industry-led research and training centres, with ₹1,000 crore allocated for FY 2026–27.
She also noted the expansion of the Electronics Components Manufacturing Scheme, originally launched in April 2025 with an outlay of ₹72,919 crore, which has already attracted investment commitments beyond its initial targets; the budget now proposes an additional ₹40,000 crore to scale up the initiative.
To support the IT sector, the budget introduces revised Safe Harbour provisions with higher thresholds and competitive margins, consolidating software development, IT-enabled services, KPO, and contract R&D under a unified Information Technology Services category to enhance tax certainty and competitiveness.
From the outset, the presentation framed the budget as a mix of (a) allocation increases and (b) thematic emphasis on quality, employability, and STEM/digital infrastructure. This framing became a key object of discussion: panellists repeatedly asked whether this “education-to-employment” arc is being advanced before foundational schooling and higher education ecosystems have been stabilised, and whether the budget’s pattern suggests a drift from universal provisioning toward targeted “excellence” initiatives.
With the budget overview established, the chair invited expert reflections, beginning with Dr Protiva Kundu and then proceeding to other speakers. Across the session, the chair also returned to a recurring set of questions: whether the system has sufficient investment in basic sciences, whether public spending is structured to attract private R&D investment, and whether India is building long-term capability or mainly assembling short-run linkages between education and employability.
Macro-Fiscal Constraints, Under-Spending, and “Exclusivity over Universality”:
Dr Protiva Kundu’s intervention was anchored in two frames: the macro-fiscal context shaping education spending, and the internal pattern of allocations and utilisation within school education and skilling.
Dr Kundu noted that the education allocation of ₹1.39 lakh crore represents around 2.6% of the total Union budget and about 0.36% of GDP, and emphasised that this remains far below the Kothari Commission 6% of GDP benchmark, a reference point repeatedly invoked in India’s education policy discourse. She argued that the gap is not merely symbolic: it reflects a persistent structural under-prioritisation at the Union level, with the rest implicitly expected to come from states.
She then emphasised that budget discussion must include not only current year estimates but also actual expenditure and revised estimates from recent years. In that view, a key concern was the unspent balance of around ₹16,000 crore across 2024–25 and 2025–26, which she broke down into approximately ₹9,900 crore and ₹6,700 crore across those years. She interpreted this not simply as a technical issue but as a sign that allocations are not converting into releases and utilisation in practice.
Dr Kundu linked this to broader macro trends: total government expenditure as a share of GDP has declined, and she described 2026–27 as one of the lowest points, citing around 13.6% of GDP for total budgeted expenditure, with social sector expenditure around 21%—again characterised as low. She argued that fiscal consolidation toward a 4.3% fiscal deficit is being achieved in part through a decline in social sector spending, which then shows up in education patterns as well. She cautioned that an 8% nominal increase may become stagnant or even lower in real terms once inflation is accounted for.
Shifting to school education, Dr Kundu emphasised the NEP promise of universalisation from pre-primary through higher secondary. However, she noted that the Department of School Education’s ability to spend the allocated budget has been limited: by December of the current fiscal cycle, only 41% had been spent, compared with 47% at the same point in the previous year, suggesting that actual expenditure may again fall below plan, affecting implementation of schemes.
A central part of her critique concerned allocation patterns: Samagra Shiksha, described as the key centrally sponsored scheme covering pre-primary to secondary education in government and government-aided schools, received only about a ₹50 crore increase over the previous year’s budget estimate. In contrast, “schools of excellence” and model systems such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, PM Shri schools, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, and Eklavya Model Residential Schools saw more substantial increases.
She highlighted a specific tension within PM Shri schools: despite an allocation of around ₹7,500 crore, utilisation had “never crossed 60%” in the last two fiscal years, yet the scheme continued receiving emphasis. This, she argued, signals a narrative shift: “exclusivity over universality.”
Dr Kundu further noted that the Department of School Education’s budget is heavily financed through the education cess, describing roughly 72% of the department’s budget as financed through it, while a CAG report indicates that cess money itself is not fully utilised and remains in the consolidated fund. This framed a broader worry: even earmarked resources may not be translating into programmatic outcomes.
On early childhood education, she stressed that this domain is shaped substantially by the Ministry of Women and Child Development through Anganwadi centres and related missions, and she noted only marginal increases in those budgets. She referenced NEP efforts to position Anganwadis as platforms for early education under campaigns like “Poshan bhi, padhai bhi,” but emphasised the limited reach of training: only 40% of Anganwadi workers had received some form of ECCE training in the last five years. She added that most children aged 3–6 attend Anganwadis rather than pre-primary sections of regular schools because pre-primary sections are limited: only 27% of government and government-aided schools have that facility.
Although she initially bracketed skilling to focus on school education first, she later returned to the education-to-skill linkage and raised concerns about execution. She referred to low spending rates within the Ministry of Skill Development, with only 15% spent by December, despite political emphasis on skill programmes. She cited a CAG report regarding the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana phases and referenced that employment generation outcomes were limited. She also highlighted the PM Internship programme: despite a headline of large job creation and a reported allocation, utilisation was only ₹526 crore, while parliamentary reporting suggested around 1.65 lakh internship positions created but only 21% uptake, indicating a mismatch between supply, employer participation, and student willingness.
She connected this to structural limitations: formal vocational training reaches only 7%, ITIs are limited in number (around 11,000), and many are not fully functional. This reinforced her broader point: even where skilling is prioritised rhetorically, the ecosystem and institutional infrastructure remain insufficient.
Dr Kundu also emphasised that teacher recruitment and training have increasingly become state responsibilities, with shifts after the Twelfth Five-Year Plan. She noted constraints on unit costs for teacher training—citing a reduction in per-teacher allocation for training—and the movement toward digital platforms such as NISHTHA and DIKSHA. She argued that state fiscal shrinkage limits expansion and quality improvement, especially in secondary education, which she described as the most vulnerable due to shortages of subject teachers, labs and data gaps.
The 6% Question, Long-Term Planning, and Contradictions in Mobility Policy:
Prof. Binod Khadria entered the discussion by acknowledging the budget presentation and the initial framing around the 6% target. He described the 6% target as a “60-year-old” benchmark originally set by the Kothari Commission (1964–66) to be achieved in 20 years, noting that India remains far behind that. He then posed the question he said he had raised in earlier budget meetings: What is sacrosanct about 6%? Why did the Kothari Commission mention 6%? In doing so, he did not dismiss the target; rather, he suggested that policy debate often repeats the figure without revisiting its underlying logic and without evaluating contemporary parameters and needs.
He observed that many of us, including scholars and policymakers, often repeat the figure without examining its historical context. The 6% recommendation, he explained, was not arbitrary—it was based on the fact that at that time the education sector contributed approximately 6% to India’s GDP. The proposal was therefore grounded in a quid pro quo principle: what education contributes to national income, it should receive back in public investment.
He expressed concern that this historical reasoning has largely disappeared from contemporary policy discourse. There is little evidence, he suggested, that current policymakers or managers within the system revisit this background. As a result, the 6% target has become a rhetorical benchmark rather than an analytically grounded one.
Prof. Khadria argued that the more relevant question today should be: What is the current contribution of the education sector to GDP? Has it remained at 6%, risen above it, or fallen below it? Without asking this, debates around allocation risk are becoming repetitive and stereotypical.
He then turned to the interpretation of year-on-year budget increases. While the overall education allocation has reportedly increased by around 8%, he cautioned that percentage growth figures do not carry much analytical weight unless contextualised within the total quantum of allocation and its share in overall expenditure. An 8% increase in one year does not imply a steady upward trajectory; it may rise or fall depending on base values. Similarly, schemes showing 80% increases may simply reflect minimal allocation in the previous year, whereas those with 2–3% increases may already have had substantial allocations.
Therefore, he emphasised that budgetary comparisons must be grounded in volume, proportion, and structural context rather than headline percentage growth. Only then can meaningful evaluation of education financing be undertaken.
He raised concerns about the proposal for five university townships near industrial hubs, asking why such hubs should be near industrial areas when India already faces serious pollution and climate risks. Prof. Khadria also referred to Geeta Gopinath’s remark that the economic cost of pollution in India exceeds the potential costs of tariff wars, arguing that this perspective is important when proposing universities near industrial townships. He cautioned that locating campuses in heavily industrial areas could expose students to environmental and health risks, and that expansion must account for sustainability and safety concerns, and he framed this as an issue that must be raised even if the session cannot immediately resolve it.
On the proposal that every district should have a girls’ hostel to promote STEM education, he asked: Why only STEM? He argued that girls’ safety concerns are broader and should be treated as such, not confined to STEM framing. He also criticised the absence of attention to teacher supply, arguing that school education expansion requires higher education teacher pipelines; without this linkage, the policy architecture remains incomplete.
Prof. Khadria emphasised that India will not have the demographic dividend forever, and that age-structure transformation must inform budget planning. He connected this to the budget’s own rhetoric around Yuva Shakti and Vikshit Bharat, arguing that the budget should embed perspective planning across the 20–21 years implied by that vision, rather than functioning as a purely annual document disconnected from long-term structural transitions.
From Capacity to Capability, Digital Divide, and the Fragility of Sustained R&D:
Prof. Rupamanjari Ghosh framed her intervention around a distinction between intent and impact, and between building capacity (seats, schemes, announcements) and building capability (quality, outcomes, long-term competence). She stated that while the budget speech presents education, S&T and R&D as central to “three duties” (sustainable economic growth, capacity building, and sabka saath–sabka vikas), the key question is whether allocations translate into outcomes such as learning, employability, and innovation capacity—and whether the system is measuring “what truly matters.”
She underscored that differences between budgeted and actual spending persist, and questioned whether increased funding will address the learning quality gap highlighted by student groups and those working closely with students. She referenced infrastructure deficits, including a figure that roughly 67,000 schools still lack adequate toilets, and noted that rural areas suffer from broken infrastructure. This, she argued, creates an unsettling disconnect between aspirational discourse about advanced research and the continuing fragility of basic schooling infrastructure.
Turning to S&T, Prof. Ghosh emphasised the “digital and future-ready” framing and noted the budget’s highlight of AI-enabled learning. However, she cautioned that advanced missions require sustained efforts rather than quick launches: referring to the National Quantum Mission, she mentioned that of a previously discussed ₹6,000 crore allocation, only about ₹2,000 crore had been spent, arguing that mature quantum technology cannot be produced via a “magic wand”, but requires sustained and serious effort. She also pointed to volatility in funding, such as “drastic cuts” to the National Supercomputing Mission despite earlier estimates, and asked where budget consistency lies.
She linked this to the digital divide: only 57% of schools have functional computer labs, far from universal coverage. For her, this is not a minor statistic but a structural barrier to the promise of digital transformation, especially in rural areas.
Moving towards R&D, Prof. Ghosh observed a shift in strategy toward “lab to market” transition. She cited the emergence of an innovation financing architecture: RDI, NRF, and BioPharma Shakti—as laudable, but emphasised that commercialisation cannot be wished into existence. It requires deep research bases, credible pathways to translate research into usable products, and stronger private R&D investment, potentially via tax incentives, particularly in AI and deep tech. She expressed concern that such incentives and pathways remain weak.
A major philosophical argument in her remarks concerned the budget’s “education to employment push.” She noted the proposed Education to Employment and Enterprise standing committee and said she did not oppose it, but warned that education increasingly appears to be reoriented to serve the economy as a sole purpose. She argued that this is not ambitious enough for a nation aspiring to leadership; if education’s only purpose is to catch up economically, India may remain in a perpetual “catch-up” mode rather than shaping global knowledge and innovation.
Furthermore, Prof. Ghosh stressed that digital platforms can expand access and personalise learning at scale, but access alone is not enough. India needs not only digital literates but digital innovators, people who create technology, not just use it. More broadly, she argued that technology alone is not a solution for core existential issues: food, clean air, clean water, healthcare, and energy. For those, the basic sciences remain foundational, producing not incremental commercial tweaks but breakthroughs that solve global problems.
In concluding her primary remarks, Prof. Rupa Manjari Ghosh argued that education must lead to foundational, physical R&D and not merely AI-led technological expansion, if India is to sustain its broader vision of equitable and sustainable development. AI, she stressed, should be an enabler, not a substitute for deeper scientific capability. She questioned whether current investments sufficiently support teacher training, interdisciplinary education, research-based universities, strong faculty pipelines, and world-class laboratories, or whether reforms remain structurally oriented without academic depth.
She asked whether initiatives such as university townships and AVGC labs can genuinely address the skill–job mismatch, and whether students are being trained for long-term capabilities rather than immediate employability. On technological self-reliance, she cautioned that mission-based R&D announcements must be assessed against past outcomes. She concluded by calling for a national “report card” focused on educational and research outcomes, not merely financial audits.
The Chair, Prof. Sinha, echoed these concerns, noting that while NEP 2020 articulated clear goals, there is limited systematic evaluation of progress. He highlighted persistent foundational gaps, including shortages of STEM teachers, a lack of laboratory infrastructure in higher secondary schools, and unreliable data on pre-primary coverage. Referring to reports of dilapidated school infrastructure, he stressed that learning gains must be viewed alongside structural deficiencies. He concluded that percentage increases in allocations are insufficient if funds remain unspent and basic systems remain weak, reiterating that quality development requires sustained investment, accountability, and long-term planning rather than short-term announcements.
Mission-Mode Priorities, Stagnant R&D Ratios, and the Missing “AI” of Academia–Industry Linkage:
Prof. Nalin Bharti approached the discussion by first reading the S&T and R&D allocations as indicators of state priorities, and then placing them within the global context of interdependency and competitiveness.
He stated that three clear priorities emerge in the budget: mission-mode technologies, large-scale public sector research infrastructure, and technological sovereignty. He referenced that the allocation for science and technology and energy amounted to about ₹55,756 crore and was around 3.1% higher than last year. Adding to this, Prof. Sachidanand said that once inflation is considered, it may even become negative in real terms.
Prof. Bharti noted that the budget’s orientation increasingly emphasises moving “from innovation to market,” and he listed examples: BioPharma Shakti (described as a strategy for healthcare advancement through knowledge, technology and innovation), a plan to allocate ₹10,000 crore over five years under that scheme, and expansions around pharmaceutical education and innovation through National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), including three new NIPERs and upgrading seven existing ones.
He also pointed to the expansion of the Semiconductor Mission: “Semiconductor Mission 2,” with allocation of ₹1,000 crore, intended to produce equipment and materials and design full-stack Indian IP. He also referenced allied elements such as electronic component manufacturing schemes, construction and infrastructure equipment, carbon capture, and other emerging technologies, as well as AI initiatives and agriculture-linked systems like “Bharat Vistar”.
Further, he mentioned that the budget reflects growing pressure to accelerate reforms and strengthen R&D across sectors, with support for public sector research in atomic energy, nuclear power, coal and lignite, defence, IT, electronics, semiconductors, the India AI Mission, DPIIT initiatives, and the Prime Minister Research Chairs.
While the intent aligns with Atmanirbhar Bharat and efforts to link public research with market-oriented innovation, Prof. Bharti noted that the overall R&D expenditure in India has remained largely stagnant at around 0.6–0.7% of GDP for several years, raising concerns about the depth and sustainability of research investment.
Compared to other countries, he described this as a very small share. Yet he also emphasised an important nuance: despite low investment, India’s position in the Global Innovation Index is improving, and outputs such as patents, trademarks, industrial design, and integrated circuits have increased. This, he suggested, indicates that India is innovating even with limited fiscal space, challenging older theories that “North innovates, and South imitates.”
A major institutional critique in his remarks concerned the weakness of industry–academia collaboration. He stated that it is not enough to place industry physically near campuses; industry and academia must also have an “emotional relationship,” which remains weak in India compared to other countries. He referenced bureaucratic delays that deter investors, noting that even small delays in R&D can cause harm because global competition moves quickly and patent filing timing determines winners and losers.
In his concluding remarks, Prof. Bharti argued that India needs to shift strategies: R&D cannot remain government-led alone; private-led R&D must rise, but incentives are needed. He proposed Research-Linked Incentives (RLI) analogous to PLI, rewarding private investors who generate research outputs. He then used a memorable framing: while India discusses AI as artificial intelligence, it neglects another AI, academia–industry linkage, which must be strengthened domestically and internationally, including openness to collaborations and even R&D-linked FDI.
Education Beyond GDP, Weak Foundations, and Stratification Across Systems:
Prof. Saumen Chattopadhyay entered the discussion by explicitly engaging points raised by earlier speakers—especially Prof. Khadria and Prof. Ghosh—and by shifting the metric debate: education’s contribution cannot be measured only in GDP terms because it produces social externalities, knowledge, and responsible citizenship essential to social and political order.
He welcomed the government’s integration of education reform into the goal of Vikshit Bharat and acknowledged the human-capital-centric approach, but expressed concern about the “reorientation” of education without robust foundations at school and higher education levels, explicitly echoing the language of reorientation used by Prof. Ghosh.
He invoked All India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) 21-22 data, stating that 35.2% of colleges have fewer than 200 students, and 46.1% have enrolment between 200 and 1,000. For him, the small size of colleges is not a neutral statistic: it produces chronic constraints—insufficient teachers across disciplines and ubiquitous budget limitations. He linked this with PLFS 2023–24, citing that 88.2% of the workforce is engaged in low-skilled and semi-skilled work, and 90.2% have education barely up to secondary level.
He argued that these figures show a close match between low education levels and low skill, producing a low-wage economy. Thus, focusing on the “numerator” (trillion-dollar economy discourse) without addressing the “denominator” (population base and foundational education) is analytically misleading.
Prof. Chattopadhyay developed a layered argument about the digital divide. He suggested that public–private divides are deepening, with elite private schools investing heavily in IT infrastructure and teaching coding from a young age, while government-funded schools cannot spend similarly. He emphasised that this differentiation is unfolding not only between private and government schools, but within private schools (elite vs low-cost), within government schools (including urban contexts like Delhi), and within higher education institutions (world-class universities vs central universities vs state universities). The effect is a widening hierarchy that policy framing may inadvertently accelerate, especially if the foundation is weak and the budget is “reoriented” too early.
Thereafter, he also returned to the question of how increases are interpreted. He referenced the discussion about the 8% increase and argued that without real and per-capita calculations, especially in massified systems, the headline figures can mislead, emphasising that budget analysis must consider revised estimates, noting that expenditure compression has occurred amid a revenue shortfall of around ₹1.2 lakh crore and a targeted fiscal deficit of 4.3% of GDP.
In this context, even increased allocations to education must be assessed in real and per capita terms, especially given the push to raise the Gross Enrolment Ratio to 50% by 2035. He cautioned that per-student spending remains limited, while institutions face pressure to mobilise resources and students increasingly rely on loans. He also echoed concerns that significant resources remain unspent, which undercuts whatever goals policy claims to pursue.
He pointed to fluctuations in allocations to schemes such as World Class Universities, Indian Knowledge Systems, research and innovation, and the PM Research Fellowship as signs of policy reorientation toward global positioning and mission-linked growth. However, he warned that competitive financing and regulatory reforms tied to the Vikshit Bharat vision may produce a bipolar higher education structure, with strong institutions advancing while smaller colleges struggle, particularly if foundational capacity, including laboratories and faculty strength, remains weak.
He emphasised practical constraints: absence of labs, lack of updated information, and the fragility of data collected through systems like DISE, arguing that reported pre-primary coverage may not reflect functional reality. Drawing from experience with the Karnataka Education Commission and a survey in Kalaburagi district, he stated that many primary schools lacked pre-primary sections, and those that had them were in poor condition. He also noted recent reports of school dilapidation and tragedies such as roof collapse incidents, using these examples to emphasise that foundational conditions remain alarming and cannot be bypassed by high-tech ambitions.
Second-Round Moderation: Equity, Inclusivity, Access, and the Implications of “Concentration”:
As the discussion moved into the second round, the chair explicitly raised equity, inclusivity, and access as major issues, connecting them to experiences of five-year NEP implementation and allocation mechanisms. Prof. Chattopadhyay referred to PLFS 2023–24 data, cited in the Economic Survey, which show that nearly two crore children aged 14–18 were out of school in 2023–24, raising serious concerns about retention at the secondary level. He further mentioned 2024 administrative data, indicating that around 1.2 crore children were untraceable, pointing to gaps in monitoring and continuation.
He questioned whether school closures and rationalisation are affecting access, and whether concentrated resource allocation may be masking deeper equity challenges. He suggested that closures may produce an artificial appearance of improved learning outcomes by concentrating effort and resources, and he linked this to broader concentration trends such as university hubs near industrial areas. The chair framed these developments as potentially shaping India’s education landscape in the years to come, and invited responses from Prof. Khadria and Dr Kundu.
Prof. Khadria deepened the argument by pointing to policy contradictions: he referenced parallels with “university cities” in Gulf countries designed to host foreign universities and foreign students, and linked this to the NEP 2020’s push toward attracting foreign students and foreign campuses in India.
He then highlighted the specific budget measure around TCS (Tax Collected at Source) for remittances going abroad for education, noting that it had been reduced from 5% to 2%, making it easier for Indian families to send money abroad for education. He framed this as contradictory to the stated goal of bringing foreign students to India. He also raised the longer-term issue of return rates, stating that only a minority might return, thereby intensifying concerns about outbound mobility and domestic capacity building.
His broader point was not anti-mobility; rather, he argued that the budget should align mobility measures with the long-term direction of India’s education and R&D ecosystem, rather than sending mixed signals.
In her closing remarks, Dr Kundu reiterated that while the education allocation has increased to ₹1.39 lakh crore, concerns remain regarding both adequacy and utilisation. She pointed out that nearly ₹16,000 crore remained unspent across recent fiscal cycles and that by December, the Department of School Education had utilised only around 41% of its allocation. She noted that while schemes such as PM Shri Schools have received substantial funding, around ₹7,500 crore, core universal schemes like Samagra Shiksha saw only marginal increases. Similarly, despite allocations for skilling and internship initiatives, uptake remains limited, and only about 7% of the workforce has formal vocational training.
She emphasised that the Department of School Education is largely financed through the education cess (around 72%), yet CAG reports indicate underutilization even of these earmarked funds. In her view, without strengthening early childhood education, teacher recruitment, secondary-level infrastructure, and state-level fiscal capacity, headline increases will not translate into systemic improvement. She concluded that implementation gaps, expenditure compression, and uneven allocation patterns must be addressed if the goals of NEP and inclusive expansion are to be meaningfully realised. She also emphasised that secondary education remains the most vulnerable, with systemic shortages of subject teachers and labs, as well as weak data availability.
In the closing stretch, the chair synthesised discussion around a key proposition: education and technological outcomes emerge from efforts made much earlier; without a long-term vision, expenditure is unlikely to be productive. He reiterated themes raised across the panel: the need to strengthen school education, address teacher shortages and lab absence, and ensure that education is not reduced solely to employment linkages.
Prof. Bharti reinforced the need for a new R&D investment model: move beyond government-led R&D, incentivise private R&D through RLI, and strengthen academia–industry linkages both domestically and internationally to escape what he described as a “poor R&D trap.”
Prof. Chattopadhyay reiterated that higher education reform is difficult, outcomes take time, and immediate returns should not be expected. He emphasised that higher education capacity is built only over long periods, reinforcing the session’s recurring argument that “mission mode” announcements without continuity can neither deepen institutional culture nor correct the foundational weaknesses visible across the system.
As the discussion drew toward its conclusion, Arushi Pathania informed the panel that Prof. Mona Kaur, who was unable to join live, had shared a recorded message. With the Chair’s permission, the video was played for the audience.
In her remarks, Prof. Kaur reflected on the overall education allocation of ₹1.39 lakh crore, noting that while it represents an increase over the previous year, it remains significantly below the long-standing 6% of GDP benchmark. She emphasized that education financing must be examined not only at the Union level but also in coordination with states, given that states bear a substantial share of responsibility for implementation.
She highlighted the importance of sustained funding for foundational schooling, teacher training, and institutional strengthening, and cautioned that expansion in higher education must be matched with adequate quality assurance mechanisms. Prof. Kaur underscored that infrastructure creation and quality enhancement require continuity of investment, and that monitoring of outcomes should accompany financial allocations to ensure effective utilization.
Following the screening of her remarks, the Chair thanked her for her contribution and resumed the panel discussion.
Conclusion:
The discussion concluded with a synthesis of the key themes raised across the session. Panellists reflected on the Union Budget 2026–27’s emphasis on education-to-employment linkages, STEM expansion, technological missions, and strategic R&D initiatives, while simultaneously noting concerns regarding foundational schooling, teacher availability, laboratory infrastructure, and expenditure utilisation. The stagnation of overall R&D spending at around 0.6–0.7% of GDP was highlighted alongside questions about the long-term sustainability of mission-based allocations.
The panellists revisited the 6% GDP benchmark, the need to examine revised estimates alongside budgeted figures, and the implications of fiscal consolidation for social sector spending. Issues of equity, inclusivity, and access were discussed in light of PLFS 2023–24 data, indicating two crore children aged 14–18 out of school, as well as 2024 administrative data suggesting that approximately 1.2 crore children were untraceable. Concerns were also raised regarding school rationalisation, concentration of resources in select institutions, and the potential emergence of stratification within the higher education system.
The session closed with agreement that while the budget outlines multiple initiatives across education, science, and innovation, their effectiveness will depend on implementation, institutional capacity, and sustained investment. The Chair thanked all speakers and participants for their insights, bringing the deliberation to a close.
Acknowledgment: This Event Report is written by Pallavi Lad, Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI.
