nep Archives - DU Beat - Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper

DUB News

Delhi University Revises UG Exam Timetable, Sunday Papers Added for NEP Students

By DU Beat May 10, 2026

DU’s final UG exam date sheet for May-June 2026 schedules examinations on Sundays. The move, aimed at speeding up the process for final year students, has drawn criticism from students and teachers alike.

Delhi University has released the final schedule for its undergraduate examinations for the May-June 2026 session. The exams will begin on May 16 and are set to conclude by June 14. As part of the new schedule, some students will have to appear for their end semester examinations on Sundays as well.

The original schedule had exams running from May 16 up until June 19, a stretch of over a month. The university has now compressed the examination window. Specifically for those students in their sixth and eighth semesters, the examinations will be concluded within 14 days starting from May 16.

The Controller of Examinations, Gurpreet Singh Tuteja, explained the rationale behind this change. “We had to reconsider the dates as semester six and semester eight students may have to appear for other examinations, interviews, or job opportunities,” he told PTI. To compress the schedule within a shorter window, the decision was made to hold papers on alternate days, including Sundays.

Students in their second and fourth semesters will remain affected by the compressed schedule. Their exams will continue after the sixth- and eighth-semester students finish, with all end-semester exams scheduled to wrap up by June 14.

This year’s exam season marks a milestone for the university as the first time eighth-semester examinations will be conducted. The examinations mark the implementation of the four-year undergraduate programme introduced under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The first batch of NEP students are now in their fourth and final year, making the exams a historic moment for the university.

The revised schedule will also accommodate sixth and eighth semester students who have a backlog of papers from previous semesters, shared university officials.

It has also been noted that the revised schedule with alternate-day and Sunday examinations applies only to those students enrolled under the NEP. Those students still giving exams under previous systems, such as the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) and the Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF), will follow their original schedules.

Despite statements explaining the rationale from various officials, the decision to hold exams on Sundays has drawn criticism from students and faculty. The move has sparked much online discourse against the schedule.

Students are advised to check the official examination website at exam.du.ac.in for the final date sheet, arranged course-wise, specific to their own programme and semester, under either NEP-UGCF-2022 or CBCS-LOCF, depending on the system they are enrolled under.

Image source: Telegraph India

Arshia Sharma

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Features

NEP: Changing Norms for Teachers and Students

By DU Beat November 9, 2025

In this conversation with Prof. Pooja Thakur, a professor at the Department of History at St Stephen’s College, we explore how the NEP has transformed the everyday realities of teaching and learning in universities.

Correspondent: Could you please describe how the hiring system within the university has changed with the NEP, and how it impacts the future of academics and academicians?

Prof. Pooja Thakur: Firstly, I would like to clarify that the ad hoc system and guest system are not new provisions that came with the NEP. The ad hoc system was introduced way back in 2007 at the University of Delhi. In short, ad hoc appointments were to be made against vacancies for a period of more than one month but less than 120 days.

Prior to this ad hoc system, the university also made recruitments of Assistant Professors on a temporary basis. The difference being that temporary teachers’ appointments were made for a period of one year, and, if I am not wrong, the teachers in these positions also received medical and other forms of leave. The Ad hoc system, however, allowed for a basic pay scale with no social or medical security. That means teachers in ad hoc positions could not avail maternity leaves, study leaves, sabbatical or receive a pension, gratuity, etc., all this while they have been teaching for over a decade.

The Guest Faculty system was perhaps brought into the university around 2010. This was to be made for short-term vacancies created for less than a month. Initially, teachers were to be paid Rs. 1000 per lecture and a maximum limit of Rs. 25000 in a month. In 2019, guidelines were changed, and now guest faculty teachers are to be paid Rs. 1500 per lecture and a maximum limit of Rs. 50000 a month. And even if you make a maximum of Rs. 50000, after tax deduction, in-hand income would be only Rs. 45,000 a month. But in months in which there are fewer classes, like mid-semester break, examinations, and summer break, then you either earn way less than Rs. 50000 in a month or you earn nothing at all, since there are no classes held. Of course, it goes without saying that a teacher working under a guest position also does not get any social or medical benefits, gratuity, pension, etc.

The permanent appointments had not been made since 2009. In 2014-2015, if I remember correctly, there were some appointments made in some courses in some colleges across the university, but a full-fledged permanent appointment drive really started in 2022. But, even then, it has left many teachers, who have taught for years in the university system under such circumstances, out of jobs.

Certainly, with the introduction of NEP, recruitment on an ad hoc basis has stopped, and now appointments are made only on a guest basis, but this is not necessarily due to the introduction of the policy itself. However, with an ad hoc, at least there was surety of a standard monthly income and a regular job, but with a guest faculty position—that too is gone! So yes, certainly it makes for a more vulnerable teaching community.

C: What are your views on teachers being arbitrarily allotted papers to teach which they have no prior knowledge of?

PT: As per my knowledge, earlier, there used to be a committee of teachers in various departments across the university. These committees looked into syllabi revisions, and teachers across colleges would participate in the making of the curriculum, after which the syllabus was passed by the University of Delhi. Now, that does not seem to be the case, at least for several new components in the course structure under NEP.

For example, the SEC and VAC papers, which are a central pool of papers, are not necessarily made by deliberation amongst teachers of a particular department. I am not sure what exactly the process is here, but it doesn’t appear to be the same as it was earlier. So, you have many papers which are not strictly aligned with your courses and are meant to enhance skills in different areas. And to my understanding, any department can teach any paper from this central pool of papers. However, amongst many problems with its implementation, one can also see that many of these papers are difficult to execute, as their practical components require infrastructure that most colleges are not equipped with. However, SEC was a component under the previous CBCS (LOCF) syllabus as well. Under this scheme, each student pursued their SEC in the third and fourth semesters (i.e., in their second year of college). These papers were aligned to core courses and introduced allied fields, helping students make informed choices at the end of graduation.

Now, the current courses require students and teachers to engage for 3–4 hours (depending on the lecture and practical components), but not always with meaningful outcomes. To engage students for these hours, we must devise ways for them to interact meaningfully, which is not always achieved. The new courses, they naturally require more preparation time.

C: New papers are being given to teach every semester, with some having little to no relevance to the actual coursework—The Art of Being Happy, for instance. How does this additional load impact you as a teacher?

PT: In a way, it does take more time to prepare for lectures with many different papers to teach. The total hours of teaching for core, discipline elective, and generic elective papers have been reduced from five to three hours to make space for two-credit courses, like SEC and VAC have either one lecture and two practical hours or four practical hours.

The addition of new components in the NEP syllabus has increased the total number of papers taught to students. For instance, first-year students now study seven papers instead of four under the earlier syllabus. This leaves little time for other activities and also adds to teachers’ workload, as they now handle more, often new, papers. With reduced hours, teachers rush through topics just to complete the syllabus. The earlier rigour of undergraduate teaching helped build strong conceptual understanding through a balanced pace of learning, reading, and writing.

The internal assessment structure has also changed. Earlier, it was 25 marks for internal evaluation and 75 for the final exam. Under NEP, 30 marks are allotted for internal assessment and 40 for continuous assessment, based on tutorial activities. Although slightly different for 2-credit courses like SEC and VAC, the outcome is clear: more submissions for students and continuous evaluation for teachers. Consequently, alongside preparing for numerous papers, teachers are burdened with constant assessment, affecting the overall quality of teaching and learning.

C: How do you see the future of public universities in India?

PT: I do believe that change is constant and do hope for better schemes for education and higher education in particular. Public universities hold immense importance for many of us—most of us wouldn’t have received a good education without them. They play a vital role in fulfilling a basic human right to education, and we cannot abandon the idea of a public university. But yes, one has to constantly strive to provide meaningful education to students and fulfil the promise that it lays out for lakhs of students who join the university each year.

I remain hopeful that better change will come. How that will happen, I cannot say. But I do believe it will require all stakeholders—teachers and students alike—to speak up for the values that have sustained our universities so far.

Image Credits: Madhav for DU Beat

Madhav Choudhary

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Features

EXPLAINED: The NEP’s Multiple Exit System and Beyond: What it Means For You

By DU Beat November 9, 2025

The NEP introduces a flexible degree system with multiple exit points, aiming to make higher education more adaptable while raising questions about its real impact on students.

The National Education Policy (NEP) has changed how undergraduate degrees work in India. The new system introduces the multiple entry and exit model, which means students can choose to leave their college course after one, two, three, or four years and still get a recognised qualification.

If a student completes one year, they will get a certificate. After two years, a diploma; after three years, a bachelor’s degree; and finally, after four years, they receive a bachelor’s degree with honours (in the case of BAP) or research. The government has also introduced the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), where each student’s earned credits will be stored online. If a student leaves after two years and wants to continue later, they can rejoin and use the credits they’ve already earned instead of starting over. The change is part of a bigger shift towards a four-year degree system, which is now being adopted by most central universities, including Delhi University. Under this system, the fourth year includes research work and a more detailed study of the chosen subject.

At first glance, this sounds like a fair and progressive model. It helps students who face financial or personal problems and may need to pause their studies. It also aligns Indian degrees with global standards, as many countries have four-year bachelor’s programmes. However, the ground reality has been mixed, especially in the first few years of implementation.

Many students and teachers say the system looks better on paper than in practice. In Delhi University, where the four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP) was reintroduced under NEP, the transition has not been easy. Students report heavier schedules, confusing syllabi, and uncertainty about how their degrees will be valued in the future. The course load has increased, and many are still unsure what difference an extra year will make.

The exit options, the certificate and the diploma are also under scrutiny. While they are officially recognised, their real-world value is not yet clear. Employers, postgraduate institutions, and even the students themselves are unsure how useful these qualifications will be. In professional courses like engineering or vocational programmes, a one- or two-year diploma might make sense, but in general academic fields like English, History, or Political Science, a certificate after one year is unlikely to help much in getting a job.

Even though the NEP tries to normalise the idea, there is still stigma attached to leaving college early. Many people still think of it as “dropping out”. Until employers start valuing these exit degrees equally, the social hierarchy between a full degree and a certificate will likely continue. Further, students from well-off backgrounds are more likely to complete the full four-year programme, while those from poorer backgrounds might have to leave early. If the early exit options are not respected in the job market, a new form of inequality may arise unintentionally, where only some students can afford to stay long enough to earn the most valuable credential.

Moreover, while some universities have adapted their courses and credit systems, others are still figuring out how to manage the new structure. There is confusion about credit transfers, subject combinations, and how the fourth-year “research” part will function for every stream.

At Delhi University, students have mixed feelings. Some welcome the flexibility that NEP has brought, while others feel the transition has been rushed. For students planning to study abroad, the four-year degree might be beneficial, since it matches international standards. But for most students who plan to work in India or appear for government exams, the three-year degree remains sufficient.

In the end, the new hierarchy of degrees represents both opportunity and uncertainty. For now, most students prefer to stay for at least the full three years to get a complete bachelor’s degree. NEP’s flexibility could make education more inclusive in the long run, but for that to happen, there must be clarity, awareness, and real value attached to every level of the new degree hierarchy. The lack of infrastructural mechanisms, however, render its provisions useless. For the NEP to truly work, students need clear guidance on what each exit option means and offers. Universities should tie up with industries or training bodies so that the one-year and two-year qualifications have actual career value. Until then, the 1-year certificate and 2-year diploma will continue to carry an invisible question mark in the minds of students and employers.

Sex Amma on NEP and College Romance

By Sex Amma November 9, 2025

Providing guidance to the students of DU since 2008 on matters of sex, dating, and intimacy, Amma is back again this week with her dose of advice.

Question: NEP has made it tough to juggle academic responsibilities and romantic needs. Is college romance
dead?

My dear kanna,

Amma remembers a time when college meant cutting chai, stolen glances in the library, and bunking lectures for “group projects” that had only two members, you and your crush. But now? Under this shiny new National Education Policy (NEP), you children look more like overworked interns in an unpaid startup called “Higher Education Pvt Ltd” than carefree students! Even your romance now needs a timetable slot!

But don’t give up, my dear. Amma wants you to know that college love is not a flower that wilts when things get hard. It’s an idli that was made in a pressure cooker. It’s strong, warm, and ready to surprise you at any moment. Yes, romance is now hiding in the quick texts sent between classes, the secret five-minute chai meetings, and the late-night Spotify playlists!

Pyaar doesn’t disappear—it just adapts. Maybe your “dates” are now shared study sessions, your “I miss yous” replaced with “Have you uploaded the file?” That’s fine. In this academic jungle, affection survives in small acts like sharing notes, saving a library seat and reminding someone to eat lunch before their AEC lecture.

Amma knows that not everyone is lucky in this NEP-era romance. Some of you are so exhausted by deadlines that you forget to reply even to a simple “wyd?” text. Some think relationships are distractions, something to “fit in later”. But kanna, don’t turn your heart into a waiting room. Love isn’t the enemy of ambition; it’s the fuel that keeps you human amidst the chaos. You need to plan ahead, pay more attention to the quality of your time than the quantity, and value emotional check-ins more than big gestures.

Don’t give in to the hustle culture; your feelings are not an optional elective. Education can train your mind, but love keeps you human. Balancing both is the real skill enhancement. Sometimes, going through hard times together can bring you even closer together.

So, to my dear jalebis, juggling between books and hearts, remember: college romance isn’t gone. It’s changed, grown sneakier and smarter. It’s tougher to navigate, yes, but who said love was supposed to be easy? It’s tough, unpredictable, and sometimes messy—just like those chaotic exam days. Now listen carefully, my dear NEP warriors. For your overworked, unromantic hearts, Amma has some pearls of wisdom: First, schedule your tenderness, beta! You make elaborate Excel sheets for assignments, but not even one slot for your dil? Arre, fifteen minutes of chai and chitchat won’t destroy your CGPA.

Next, Amma says that you should respect other people’s boundaries and consent. Just because you’re doing “multidisciplinary studies” doesn’t mean you experiment without permission! Ask, listen, and respect. And finally, stop grading love like it’s an internal assessment. Not every emotion needs validation. Sometimes love just is messy, chaotic, and gloriously unproductive. Life isn’t a CGPA; it’s more like a viva—spontaneous, nerve-wracking, but occasionally full of surprise compliments.

Even in this NEP maze, where deadlines come up faster than DU pigeons, love still finds a place to sit under a tree or a smile in the seminar hall. And who knows? Maybe in the middle of a crowded fest, while chasing that extra credit, you’ll bump into someone whose timetable magically matches yours. Remember: while the policy keeps changing your syllabus, Amma’s curriculum stays the same— thoda pyaar, thoda laughter, aur ek garam cup chai. Now go, finish that assignment and text that cutie from your minor subject. Both deadlines matter.

Want to ask Amma a query? Mail it to [email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB Speak

Foreign Students and NEP

By DU Beat November 9, 2025

The NEP has ushered in several changes to the field of Indian education, from what and how students study to how teachers teach. On paper, the NEP has made education more flexible and overall more ‘glamorous’, incorporating global exposure and digital learning. However, the NEP looks at knowledge and education through an ‘Indian’, and arguably ‘saffron’ lens. Hence, many curriculum alterations made by the NEP are of little value to foreign students.

One of the most beautiful attributes of Delhi is that it is a melting pot of diverse cultures from around the world. It is a hub of globalisation where cultural differences meet, mix, and are adopted. This diverse population is indicative of a diverse student body, one that cannot be fully served by education policies that view learning through the eyes of unilateral exchange. Yet, the University of Delhi was the UGC’s first experimental candidate when it came to implementing the NEP.

The NEP has not only failed to accommodate the needs of the multitude of foreign nationals who have chosen India as their study-abroad destination, but it is actively forcing them to learn subjects that seldom contribute to their academic and/or professional aspirations. For instance, departments of Astrology, Rituals, and Vastu have been established in universities like Banaras Hindu University and Jawaharlal Nehru University. Superstition has been incorporated into education in the name of “value addition.” Ironically, this added value is undetectable.

Some syllabus alterations in particular courses simply make no sense; these are barely of measurable utility to Indian students, let alone helpful to foreign students. For example, journalism students would benefit more from writing or political science classes as opposed to learning about Bharat Muni’s Natyashastra. The NEP has replaced several logical, intellectual, and scientific parts of curricula with Indian feudal values. Japanese exchange student Kenta Terada questions the relevance some subjects have in his journalism course, and says, “I would rather have practical classes.” It also attempts to write the “history of India from an Indian perspective.” Some argue these are attempts to saffronise the country through education. However, that claim is ambiguous and a topic of heated discussion.

Living in a country and learning its language(s) and culture is one thing. It is both necessary and, a lot of the time, recreational. But, when it is enforced and delivers content that is devoid of practicality (which is often what the NEP’s changes have done), it becomes a tedious waste of time and money spent on education. As Mary Flaviah, a Kenyan student at the Delhi School of Journalism, said, “I just didn’t see the relevance, and to me it felt like a pure waste of time since at the end of the day I’ll go back to my country…some courses still don’t make sense to me as a foreign student. The Indian Philosophy, for instance. I am so sure I am never going to apply that anywhere, but because it’s part of the coursework, I am forced to study it.”

Many other foreign students share the same opinion, with Nigerian student Nneoma Marvellous Anyaogu saying that though she appreciates being able to gain a deeper understanding of India’s culture and traditions, as someone who is not Indian, and may not build a career in India, she “sometimes finds these subjects less connected” to her personal or professional goals.

Image Credits: Mahin for DU Beat

Souparnika Rajkumar

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB Speak

The Politics of Evaluation: Continuous Assessment and the Disappearance of Depth

By DU Beat November 9, 2025

The classroom has turned into an assembly line of submissions, and teachers, overwhelmed by grading requirements, have little time left for meaningful mentorship or feedback.

Education has long been regarded as a process of intellectual discovery—of thinking deeply, questioning boldly, and learning meaningfully. Yet, this ideal is steadily eroding. Across universities and schools, students now live within an unending cycle of evaluation—internal assessments, projects, presentations, assignments, and the list goes on. The logic behind this system seems sound: frequent evaluation is meant to encourage consistent learning, reduce exam stress, and provide teachers with an ongoing understanding of student progress. However, beneath the promise of fairness and engagement lies a troubling paradox—when everything is assessed, very little is actually learned deeply.

The shift towards continuous assessment has been one of the most significant changes in modern education policy. From the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in India, the trend is clear: move away from high-stakes final exams and towards a “holistic” evaluation system that values participation, projects, and internal assessment. On paper, it sounds progressive—a model that rewards effort and creativity rather than last-minute memorisation. But in practice, this model has created a culture of constant performance, where students are perpetually producing rather than reflecting.

One of the major drawbacks of this system is the disappearance of depth. Instead of allowing students to spend weeks exploring a concept or topic, reading beyond the syllabus, or revising and refining their understanding, the system demands quick, measurable outputs. Every week brings a new deadline, a new rubric or stylesheet, and a new mark. Students, caught in this cycle, quickly learn the art of strategic compliance—doing just enough to meet the criteria without engaging deeply with the material. The intellectual curiosity that education is meant to nurture is replaced by a survival instinct: What’s the word limit? How many marks is this worth?

This is not laziness; it is adaptation. When evaluation becomes omnipresent, students prioritise what is measurable over what is meaningful. In such an environment, thinking deeply—the hallmark of genuine learning—becomes a luxury few can afford.

The continuous assessment model has also reshaped the teacher’s role. Instead of acting as facilitators of thought, teachers often become administrators of evaluation. With dozens or even hundreds of students to assess weekly, providing detailed, personalised feedback becomes almost impossible. The lack of time for thoughtful evaluation has profound consequences. Feedback, when rushed or generic, loses its value. It neither guides improvement nor encourages reflection. What should have been a dialogue between learner and teacher turns into a transaction. This mechanisation of feedback erodes the relationship between teacher and student as co-thinkers.

The push for continuous assessment is not merely educational. It reflects a managerial mindset prioritising accountability, data, and efficiency over critical inquiry. Pressured to show measurable outcomes, institutions reduce education to quantifiable deliverables. Learning becomes performance, not understanding; students turn into data points, teachers into evaluators. This technocratic approach, appealing for its promise of transparency and productivity, flattens intellectual depth, replacing curiosity with compliance. By reducing growth to checklists and metrics, efficiency begins to matter more than thought, and deep, reflective learning becomes a luxury modern education can no longer afford.

At the heart of this crisis lies a more basic issue—the disappearance of time. Both students and teachers are caught in a perpetual rush. There is no pause between one assessment and the next, no breathing space for reading beyond the syllabus, developing skills, pursuing their hobbies, interests, etc.

Deep learning, however, requires slowness. It requires the patience to wrestle with difficult ideas, to make mistakes, to reflect and return. The constant churn of assessments denies this possibility. Students move from one topic to another without the chance to consolidate their understanding. What remains is surface learning—fragmented knowledge held together by deadlines rather than comprehension. This commodification of learning undermines intrinsic motivation. The joy of discovering something new, of following a thought simply because it is interesting, is replaced by a transactional mindset. Over time, students internalise a dangerous belief: that knowledge is not something to live with, but something to complete and move past.

None of this is to argue for a return to the anxiety-inducing system of one-shot final exams. Continuous evaluation can, in theory, support learning if implemented thoughtfully—with fewer assessments, better feedback, and more emphasis on reflection rather than output. To reclaim depth in education, institutions must reimagine assessment as a process of dialogue, not surveillance. Teachers need time and trust to mentor rather than manage. Students need space to think, fail, and revise without the constant fear of being graded. Education must once again become a space for intellectual risk-taking, where questions matter more than answers and where thinking slowly is valued as a form of courage, not inefficiency.

Image Credits – Hindustan Times

Richa Choudhary

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB Speak

The Epistemic Project of the Nation: Decolonisation, Hindutva, and the Question of Knowledge

By Yashika Jain November 9, 2025

Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has asserted that at the core of the National Education Policy lies the goal of “decolonising education and achieving aspirations, creating pride in our languages, culture and knowledge.” As students of critical thinking, we must then pause and ask what this decolonisation means, and how it translates into practice through the much-celebrated Indian Knowledge System (IKS).

In the past few years, the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) has emerged as one of the most discussed features of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Dedicated IKS divisions have been set up under the AICTE, research fellowships and conferences funded in its name, “centres of excellence” announced, and institutes from medical colleges to IITs have introduced courses on ancient sciences, philosophy, and Sanskrit traditions.

Before we engage with its ideological and philosophical implications, it becomes necessary to pause and ask what exactly is being invoked under the label ‘Indian Knowledge System’. The policy framework presents IKS as both a recovery of ancient wisdom and a modern research frontier, but the term itself remains conceptually opaque. What even is a knowledge system? Strangely, if one turns to the official portals or documents, there exists no clear definition of what the term actually means or, more crucially, what it leaves out. After all, the act of defining what can be considered “knowledge” and then further, what can be considered Indian knowledge, demands at least some coherent framework or guidelines.

Broadly speaking, there have existed two dominant ways of understanding knowledge. The liberal-humanist view treats knowledge as universal, objective, and value-neutral, a pursuit aimed at describing what is, rather than prescribing what ought to be. Within this framework, truth stands apart from the knower’s culture, faith, or geography; the scientist in Delhi and the scientist in London, in principle, operate within the same rational order. A person, then, can question the validity of necessarily categorising knowledge as ‘Indian’. Does the vague geographic idea of a place serve an extraordinary function that needs to be specially discussed and highlighted? The liberal imagination of knowledge would argue not. Knowledge, in this view, is meant to transcend the boundaries of nation and identity, aspiring instead to universality.

A student having inherited a postcolonial legacy would intervene here to say that knowledge systems have never been innocent; they have always already been implicated in power. We are all, in some sense, children of the Foucauldian analysis, which taught us that knowledge does not simply describe reality; it creates the conditions through which reality can be known, named, and governed. Building on this insight, thinkers like Edward Said and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak have shown how colonialism imposed its own epistemic order where the West stood for reason and science, and the non-West for myth and superstition. Within this framework, modern science itself becomes a kind of “local knowledge” of the West, whose dominance owes as much to power as to proof.

This theory has since been expanded and meticulously studied by postcolonial scholars in India after Independence. As a newly liberated nation embarked on its journey of self-actualisation and sought to craft an identity distinct from its colonial past, the question of knowledge remained ever-present. Thinkers like K.C. Bhattacharya, Ashis Nandy, and Partha Chatterjee turned their gaze inward, arguing that political freedom without intellectual swaraj in the realm of ideas remains incomplete. They contended that India continued to think within categories inherited from colonial rule, and that genuine decolonisation required re-imagining the very foundations of knowledge itself.

Placed within this lineage, the contemporary Indian Knowledge System discourse promoted by the NEP presents an intriguing yet troubling paradox. This project of decolonising knowledge seeks to replace Western intellectual dominance with indigenous, Vedic frameworks, grounded in what proponents call “Hindu spiritual exceptionalism”. Its aim is to “decolonise the Hindu mind” and achieve “epistemic decolonisation” by overcoming a colonial consciousness that allegedly obscures India’s true traditions.

The movement’s intellectual core is the promotion of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), presented as an alternative to Western epistemology. Thinkers like J. Sai Deepak frame this through the language of “onto-epistemology and theology (OET)”, arguing for a revival of a distinctly Bharatiya OET rooted in Vedic thought and a “reversal of the gaze” that subjects the West to dharmic critique. This discourse blends postcolonial theory with nationalist ideology, borrowing academic terms like “epistemic violence” and “coloniality” to reject Western rationality, secularism, and universal human rights as alien or “Abrahamic”. It also advances pseudoscientific historical claims (e.g., ancient aeronautics or pre-Newtonian gravity) to assert the scientific validity of Vedic “inner sciences”.

However, the one thread that ties the IKS ambassadors and the western power it is supposedly fighting against is the obsessive fascination with the ancient past of the Orient. They both have constructed mythologies that fuel their knowledge production and propagation of a spiritual civilisation frozen in its former glory, the most insidious consequence of which is its denial of its complex social reality. The same discourse that claims to decolonise knowledge often erases caste, gender, and regional differences. Pro-Hindutva scholars argue that the caste system is a colonial hallucination, a Western invention meant to malign Hindu narratives and so on.

Importantly, and this is what worries me the most, the project treats knowledge as fundamentally isolated and self-serving. The debate between the power relations and the objective nature of knowledge is too complex to try to reconcile here, but knowledge has always been a collaborative enterprise. The history of ideas, if anything, is the history of cross-pollination: Indian numerals found form in Arabic transmission, Buddhist philosophy shaped Chinese thought, Greek logic left its traces in medieval scholasticism, and Persian aesthetics coloured our own literary imagination. The IKS narrative, in propagating a rigid, self-contained idea of India, endangers this very fabric of intellectual life.

In claiming to decolonise Indian education, the NEP enacts the opposite by fixing it to a static, glorified past. It leaves no room for self-critique, no space to ask what was excluded, who was silenced, or how our understanding might change. It is as if India’s intellectual peak has already occurred somewhere in the Vedic age, and everything that follows can and should only be imitated. What does that say about our present capacity to think, to add, to question? Can a society that sees knowledge as already complete ever produce anything truly new?

Image Credits: The Times of India

Yashika Jain

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

NEP Approves Research Supervision for NEP-UGCF Amidst Concerns on Implementation

By DU Beat July 6, 2025

Despite the Academic Council’s approval of the policy of research and supervision in regards to NEP-UGCF’s fourth year policy in DU colleges, many concerns have been raised in regards to its implementation.

As of July 5, 2025; the policy of research supervision for the fourth year of NEP-UGCF has been approved by the Academic Council amidst dissent by several elected members. According to Rudrashish Chakraborty, who is Associate Professor at the Department of English in Kirori Mal College, as well as an executive of DUTA (Delhi University Teachers’ Association) from 2023 to 2025, the poor devising of the policy is owed to multiple reasons; the first of which include the lack of infrastructure in the form of space and laboratories in colleges to conduct quality research at the undergraduate level to research supervision not being accounted for as workload for teachers, excessively burdening teachers who are already inundated with work.

Aside from these issues, the division of workload has also been a contentious topic, with the policy deciding on a stipulation of a minimum of ten students to be allotted to a teacher for research supervision. This ratio is not only too high and would therefore jeopardize the quality of research, but also make coordination difficult as it is not possible for any teacher to do justice to the research work of so many students after engaging in their own workload.

In addition to this, no funds have been allocated for research work in the fourth year of UGCF, which leaves colleges to fend for themselves. Colleges in the Delhi University circuit are being advised to mobilise funds through the Students’ Fund, which may prove to be insufficient in the long run.In terms of research, the students are to study four courses alongside writing a dissertation, which not only takes the focus away from the conduction of research, but will also lead to a reduction of quality leading to research becoming a compulsion instead of being an original, worthwhile contribution to Indian academic spaces.

One of the guidelines for research supervision expects students pursuing the fourth year to publish in a scopus-indexed journal as research outcome. Given that even teachers would find it difficult to pursue such interests within the stipulated time while balancing full-fledged studying, this unrealistic clause will discourage students from pursuing the fourth year.

Anumeha Mishra, a member of the Academic Council, has stated,

The university must refrain from applying a one-size-fits-all size model in approving projects eligible for research funding under IoE. Discipline-specific parameters must be evolved.”

In 2019, Delhi University’s colleges saw a 25% increase in student intake due to the EWS expansion. An additional surge in admissions by 20% occurred following the implementation of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) from 2022 onwards. This move, having been undertaken along with the fourth year, comes in light of accusations of mismanagement and lack of infrastructural accommodation for the rising number of student intake every year. The absence of laboratories, reading rooms, and teacher workspaces severely undermine the programme’s feasibility. The implementation, thus, appears rushed and in the absence of structural and financial support, risks diluting the quality of education and pushing the system toward collapse.

Dr. Monami Sinha, also a member of the academic council, points out how undergraduate students currently studying seven courses per semester, including SEC and VAC, dilute the study of core subjects and awarding of credits per subject.

Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Aastha Singh

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

Uncertainty Shadows The Fourth Year of Delhi University’s NEP Rollout.

By DU Beat July 2, 2025

As Delhi University’s four-year undergraduate programme enters its final year for the first batch under NEP 2020, students are met with confusion, institutional silence, and uncertainty over its value.

NEP 2020 had big dreams for education. It promised, among other things, a “more multidisciplinary undergraduate education.” Flagging the “lesser emphasis on research at most universities and colleges”, the policy framed research as the hallmark of a “great civilisation.”

To fulfil this vision, the four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP) was introduced. The new curriculum offers students the option to choose between three specialisation tracks in their final year – Dissertation Writing, Academic Projects, and Entrepreneurship. The first track is designed for those pursuing academic research, the second focuses on applied research, while the third allows students to develop entrepreneurial ideas. These components, worth 12 credits collectively, are meant to usher in undergraduate research as a formal part of the academic journey.

Delhi University was among the first central universities to implement the FYUP under NEP 2020, beginning in the academic year 2022–2023. The reimagined structure was presented as a transformative space to cultivate holistic, multidisciplinary inquiry, with the four-year format being positioned as the preferred option, offering students the opportunity to pursue a major alongside minors, engage in research, and explore broader intellectual horizons.

However, it seems to be that within its inaugural batch there is a general consensus that this ambitious experiment will promptly fall short of what it envisioned. Anecdotal evidence from students across colleges suggests that a significant number are choosing not to continue into the fourth year. While Delhi University has not released official enrolment statistics yet, student testimonials across different colleges and universities show a similar pattern of hesitancy and concern.

After graduating students have a few options. They typically pursue placements, graduate studies or prepare for competitive exams. The added fourth year has only intensified these pre-existing dilemmas, introducing a new layer of uncertainty.

For students interested in research, the fourth year appears redundant. The conventional path of a three-year bachelor’s followed by a two-year master’s continues to be the preferred model. Some students argue that it won’t match the depth and rigour of a two-year masters. Others are more cautiously optimistic. Tia Pandit, a Physics (Hons) student from Kirori Mal College, sees her decision as a calculated move to improve her chances of being accepted into postgraduate programs abroad. The capstone thesis and a minor in CS will, she believes, give her the academic depth many international universities look for.

Yet even those inclined toward research worry that the year may not deliver the value it promises. Khushi Aggarwal, an Economics (Hons) student from Hindu College, remarked,

DU often promises more than it delivers. For instance, it previously mentioned that under the NEP framework, internship opportunities would be provided in place of VACs or something similar, but that didn’t materialise.”

A principal from a prominent North Campus college told The Indian Express that students are at a crossroad, stating, “From a student’s perspective, there are now two choices – either exit after the third year and prepare for CUET-PG or CAT, or continue with the fourth year.“ He failed to take into account the fact that the students might just treat the fourth year as their preparatory gap year.

Aakriti Singh, a journalism student from Kamala Nehru College, asserted that it’s better to pursue a research degree rather than staying idle alongside preparing for exams. Similarly, Sreeja from Gargi College revealed,

More than half of my class is opting for the fourth year just because they couldn’t get better institutes for masters. All of us plan to study better for entrance exams this year rather than taking a gap year to go for masters next year.”

Sarah Nautiyal, a BA (Hons) English student from Kirori Mal College, noted that most students, including her, see this period as a “gap year with benefits”. She emphasised that her decision to stay was influenced a lot more by the faculty because of whom the year “won’t be a complete waste”.

This batch has already endured multiple institutional changes, from the introduction of CUET to the rollout of new course components like VACs and SECs, but the fourth year stands out for its sheer lack of clarity and institutional preparedness. There is near-unanimous agreement among students that colleges failed to adequately explain this entirely new system.

Tia recalls how, in her first year, her college had organised a detailed workshop to explain the newly introduced academic structure. In contrast, now in her third year, she says there has been complete silence around what the fourth year will actually entail. There have been no sessions, no official communication, and no clarity about the structure or content of the courses being offered. Far from guiding them through the process, many faculty members appear to be in the dark themselves, uncertain even about what courses will be offered. In fact, several professors have gone so far as to advise students against opting for the fourth year.

Extending the discourse upon the lack of clarity, Shrishti Shishodia, a Political Science (Hons) student from DCAC, supplemented its far-reaching influence on the careers of the students, stating, “The 4th year remains a bizarre idea for the students. Especially when the struggle to have a job in today’s market, embellished by concentrated competition in the few domains of respected employment avenues, is considered.”

The lack of clarity is only one part of the problem. Many DU colleges do not have the infrastructure to support a meaningful fourth year. Maya John, an elected Academic Council member and faculty at Jesus and Mary College, pointed out to The Indian Express that a majority of colleges lack the resources necessary for undergraduate research. There aren’t enough laboratories, classrooms, computer systems, access to original software, or additional funding and scholarships. Without these, the quality of academic projects and research output will inevitably suffer.

The fourth year, like many NEP reforms, seems to be detached from the ground reality and instead be driven more by ambition of outcome. As a result, students are inevitably caught in the crossfire, asked to commit to an additional year without any clarity, structure or institutional support needed to adequately transform the undergraduate experience. They are, as Sarah emphasised, “guinea pigs”, participants in a policy experiment that remains worryingly underdeveloped.

Image Credits: Devesh for DU Beat

Yashika Jain

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

Over 30 teachers detained in Delhi during anti-NEP protest

By DU Beat September 8, 2024

Approximately 30 teachers were detained by police in Central Delhi’s Mandi House area while they were participating in a unity march to protest against NEP 2020, paper leaks, and other issues.

On 5th September 2024, also celebrated as Teachers’ Day, over 30 teachers from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi University, and others were detained from Mandi House for protesting against the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the National Testing Agency (NTA), paper leaks, and the undermining of reservations in educational institutions. The Federation of Central University Teachers’ Associations (FEDCUTA), All India Federation of University & College Teachers’ Organisations (AIFUCTO), and Joint Forum for Movement on Education (JFME) organized a joint march from Mandi House to Jantar Mantar to address the increasing government interference in the autonomy of educational institutions. However, before the teachers could reach Jantar Mantar, FEDCUTA President Moushumi Basu and former President Nandita Narain, among others, were forcibly detained.

As per The Federal reports, a senior police officer stated that the teachers were arrested as they attempted to move towards the Embassy area.

The teachers were permitted to protest, but when they tried heading towards the Embassy area, the police had to detain them. The protestors at Jantar Mantar were allowed to continue their protest,” he said.

However, Moushumi Basu stated that although the police promised to drop them at Jantar Mantar, they dropped them to Kapashera Police Station near the Gurugram border, far from the protest location. The teachers’ association also issued a statement condemning the detentions and calling it a clear violation of democratic rights.

On the day that the nation observes as Teachers’ Day, senior teachers and students were forcibly detained by the police in order to prevent the March. The action of the Delhi Police today…is a shocking demonstration of the continuing assault on Indian democracy and the utter contempt with which the state views education, learning and the teaching community”, the statement read.

As per the reports, FEDCUTA President and JFME Coordinator, Moushumi Basu spoke about the incident,

The police action today only serves to vindicate the very sentiments behind this teacher-student Unity March. This protest is about the unity of those engaged in the teaching-learning process who are standing up against the destruction of the nation’s future through the erosion of public education. NEP 2020 threatens high academic standards and makes education inaccessible to all, particularly marginalized groups.”

She further added and said, “By detaining teachers and students on a day meant to celebrate educators, the government has shown its utter contempt for the teaching community. The Delhi Police has been used to silence our voices, but our fight continues.”

The Democratic Teachers’ Initiative (DTI), in a statement issued following the detentions also condemned the government’s actions.

Look at how teachers are being humiliated on Teachers’ Day! Today’s protest, held on FEDCUTA-AIFUCTO-JFME’s call, was meant to demonstrate our collective resistance to NEP 2020. Yet, instead of listening to teachers and students, the government has chosen to suppress us by force. This is how we are celebrating Teachers’ Day—by being detained for fighting for the future of education!”

Despite being detained, the senior leaders have asked for continued demonstrations. Professor Nandita Narain, former FEDCUTA president, said,

This is a critical moment for education in India. Our public education system is under attack, and teachers, students, and citizens must stand together to protect it. We will not be silenced.”

Meanwhile, student groups from different universities, including Delhi University and Ambedkar University, continued the protest at Jantar Mantar. The protestors also raised slogans, placards, and posters to highlight the issues of NEP and paper leaks, among others. The demonstration reflected the increasing dissatisfaction within the academic community over educational policies and other systematic issues. The detainment of the teachers highlighted the growing tension between the teachers and the government over the crisis in the education sector.

Featured Image Credits: The Hindu

Reeba Khan

[email protected]

Keep Reading