Press Release
Tulsi Kumari
The IMPRI Center for ICT for Development (CICTD), IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, hosted an interactive panel discussion on “Education, S&T, R&D and Union Budget 2026-27” on February 8, 2026 (Sunday) at 10:30 a.m. IST under IMPRI’s 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2026-2027, as part of IMPRI.
Chaired and moderated by Prof. Sachidanand Sinha, Visiting Professor, IMPRI; Former Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, the panel brought together distinguished academic voices to interrogate whether the budget’s focus on “Education to Employment and Enterprise” effectively addresses the foundational and structural gaps in the Indian education and S&T sector.
Prof. Sachidanand Sinha initiated the session by laying out the broad contours of the 2026-27 budget. The total education budget stands at approximately Rs. 1.39 lakh crore, representing an 8.27% increase over the previous year. The government’s vision for this fiscal year is clearly anchored in linking education to employability, digital literacy, and the expansion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) infrastructure. Prof. Sinha noted that while these figures suggest growth, the real challenge lies in the tripartite division: school education, higher education, and the R&D ecosystem.
School Education: The Crisis of Human Capital
Dr. Protiva Kundu, Thematic Lead, Social Sectors at the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), provided a critical analysis based on the Economic Survey (2025-26). She pointed out a fundamental philosophical shift: the government increasingly views education as an investment in high-quality human capital rather than a broader tool for human development. A major concern raised was the stagnation of funding. Despite the nominal 8% increase, the total education budget remains at just 2.6% of the total union budget and a meager 0.36% of the GDP. This is significantly below the 6% of GDP benchmark recommended by both the Kothari Commission (1964-66) and the NEP 2020.
Dr. Kundu also highlighted the “unspent balance” paradox. Between 2024 and 2026, approximately Rs. 16,000 crores remained unspent from the budget, indicating that the Center is not releasing the funds it allocates. She noted that fiscal consolidation is occurring at the cost of social sector expenditure. This suggests a narrative of exclusivity over universalization.
Demographic Dividend and the STEM Bias
Prof. Binod Khadria, President, Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT); Co-convener of Metropolis Asia-Pacific, lamented that 60 years after the Kothari Commission, India is still 40 years behind its 6% GDP target for education. He argued that the 8% increase in the budget is “window dressing” because, when adjusted for inflation, it likely represents stagnant or even negative growth.
Prof. Khadria raised sharp questions about the University Townships planned near industrial corridors. He warned that placing educational hubs near industrial zones might expose students to hazardous environmental conditions. He also questioned the “STEM-only” focus. While STEM is vital for a “Viksit Bharat,” the budget fails to address the underlying teacher supply crisis. Without a robust plan for faculty recruitment and retention, the focus on “Yuva Shakti” remains a slogan rather than a strategy.
Building Capability vs. Building Scale
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), asked the fundamental question: “Are we investing enough, and are we investing right?” She used a compelling metaphor: if physical infrastructure (roads) builds the path for growth, then Education and R&D build the engine.
She critiqued the budget for its focus on Impact over Intent. Allocations must translate into learning outcomes and innovation capacity. Currently, 67,000 schools still lack basic infrastructure. Additionally, the budget promotes AI and space exploration, but only 57% of schools have functional computer labs, making the “digital knowledge grid” a potential source of further urban-rural disparity.
Prof. Ghosh argued that education is being reoriented to serve the economy, warning that “you can only be a catcher and never a leader” if education is merely a tool for economic service. While the fiscal deficit for 2026–27 is estimated at 4.3% of GDP, the adjustment seems to have been achieved primarily by compressing education expenditure. She called for a national report card on outcomes, rather than just financial audits.
R&D Trap and Industrial Linkages
Prof. Nalin Bharti, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Patna and Visiting Senior Fellow, IMPRI, focused on Science, Technology, and the “Technological Sovereignty” of the country. He noted a 3.1% increase in S&T and pointed out several ambitious missions such as India Semiconductor Mission 2.0, Mission Bio-Pharma Shakti and setting up of Space Infrastructure.
However, Prof. Bharti identified a “missing link” between industry and academia. He argued that bureaucratic delays in R&D are lethal because time is the most critical factor in patent protection and commercialization. He suggested that for India to escape this trap, there must be a move toward private-led R&D, incentivized by Research Linked Incentives (RLI).
The Foundations of Higher Education
Prof Saumen Chattopadhyay, Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES), School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), addressed the “terrible shape” of higher education institutions. According to the AISHE 2021-22 report, 35.2% of colleges in India have fewer than 200 students, and 46.1% have between 200 and 1,000. These small, fragmented institutions suffer from budget constraints and a lack of specialized teachers. He warned of a “bipolarity” in the university system where elite institutions thrive while mediocre ones struggle for survival due to a lack of financial autonomy.
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, observed that the role of the state remains predominant and extremely important. She viewed the shift toward a welfare approach for girls’ hostels as a positive step. However, she raised a concern regarding the thematic focus: while the budget aims to strengthen new technology, a larger portion of the student body is still studying social sciences and humanities, and very little has been discussed regarding the needs and future of these students.
Social Equity and the Unreached
In the final segment, the panel returned to the issues of equity and inclusivity. Prof. Sinha noted that the “rationalization” or closure of schools in tribal areas is adversely affecting enrollment. Data from UDISE+ 2024 shows that 1.2 crore children are “found nowhere“ in the system.
Dr. Kundu highlighted the failure of scholarship schemes. For example, in 2024-25, only Rs. 1.5 crore was utilized out of Rs. 326 crores allocated for minority pre-matric scholarships. Similarly, the PM Internship Programme, despite a Rs. 10,000 crore allocation, saw an uptake of only 21%. This mismatch between supply (stipends/roles) and demand (place of internship) illustrates the gap between policy design and ground reality.
Conclusion
The panel concluded that while the Union Budget 2026-27 is ambitious in its intent to create a “Viksit Bharat” through digital skills, AI, and industrial townships, it suffers from a “foundational neglect.” The recurring themes of unspent balances, the stagnant R&D-to-GDP ratio, and the exclusion of the humanities suggest a narrow vision of growth. For India to truly lead, the state must move beyond “window-dressing” and ensure that the 6% GDP target for education is finally met, coupled with institutional autonomy and a focus on “capability” rather than just “capacity.”
IMPRI’s 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27
IMPRI 7th Annual Series of Thematic Deliberations and Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27
Education, S&T, R&D and Union Budget 2026-27
Acknowledgement– This article is written by Tulsi Kumari, a Research Intern at IMPRI.
