Opinion

Every Union Budget cycle revives a familiar argument: is India spending enough on education? Usually, the debate is boiled down to just one headline numberthe Ministry of Education's allocationsingle, handedly seen as the measure of national intent. However, such a narrow presentation ignores the core fact. Education outcomes depend not on the budget of a single ministry but on the overall public ecosystem's robustness and consistency.

The ability of a child to learn is not only inside the four walls of the classroom. It is influenced by nutrition, health, and sanitation, but also by transport, housing stability, digital access, and family income security. If any of these supporting systems get weak enough, it won't be enough for even the most cleverly designed education policies to make a big difference. In fact, education is the place where the flaws of different policies meet and get hidden from the eyes of the public.

Public facilities, such as schools, colleges, libraries, hostels, and laboratories, also have a social responsibility that they share. Government funding alone will never be enough to keep the quality high if the local people continue to see public infrastructure as something they can spend without thinking. It is a fact that when citizens care for their community, school property is protected, teachers are valued, and local institutions are involved, the public education systems last longer and work better. On the other hand, neglect and indifferent attitude result in the deterioration of even the best, funded facilities thus, the infrastructure turns into an empty shell.

This mutual dependence is most apparent in school education. While education departments are responsible for midday meal programs, the success of such programs cannot be separated from issues like food security, supply chains, and public health systems. In case nutrition budgets are cut or health services decline, attendance will fall and learning will be affected especially those first generation learners. Similarly, foundational literacy initiatives are also linked to early childhood care, anganwadi facilities, and maternal health, which are all beyond the direct control of the education ministry.

The higher education sector has a more profound and philosophical problem. Most of the time, universities are evaluated almost solely based on placement records and salary packages, which is why education is narrowly seen as a means to making money. This banalization of education as a mere employability tool is tantamount to neglecting the broader educational goals of innovation, social impact, and intellectual synthesis. We as a society need to engage in more discussions about research, problem solving, ethical leadership, and knowledge creation not so much about entry level salaries. Both educational institutions and families should change their perspective of education from merely a private economic return to a public good that drives innovation and social transformation.

The digitalization of education is even more the reason why the deficiencies of the educational ecosystem become obvious. There is no way that online learning, AI, powered classrooms, and digital testing can exist without a constant supply of electricity, a cheap internet connection, and appropriate devices. These are dependent on the delivery of power, telecom, and digital public infrastructure, sectors that are hardly taken into account in the education budget discussions.

Ultimately, education results cannot be separated from employment and economic policy. Skilling programs do not make sense if industrial growth, MSME support, and labor reforms do not lead to job creation. When graduates are underemployed, the blame is usually put on institutions while economic planning that is out of alignment is ignored.

If India truly wants better learning outcomes, higher quality research, and a workforce that is prepared for the future, it should stop thinking in silos. Funding education needs to be considered as one ecological system where, for instance, governmental departments cooperate, societies become involved, and the criteria for success are diverse including health, infrastructure, innovation, and employment.

So, the main point should not be solely the volume of India's expenditure on education but also the effectiveness, consistency, and combination of its investments in all aspects which enhance the value of education.

The Sunday Sermon for a ‘Viksit Bharat’

In a departure from parliamentary convention that seemed designed to underscore the extraordinary urgency of the moment, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Union Budget for the fiscal year 2026-27 on a Sunday. The timing was more than a scheduling anomaly; it was a symbolic assertion of a government in mission mode, working overtime to construct the edifice of a "Viksit Bharat" (Developed India) by 2047. As the nation tuned in, the Finance Minister unveiled what she termed a "Yuva Shakti driven budget," explicitly positioning the demographic dividend—India's youth—as the primary fuel for the country’s economic engine.

The narrative framing of this budget was distinct from its predecessors. It was not merely a statement of accounts but a manifesto of "Kartavyas" (Duties). The Finance Minister outlined three primary duties: accelerating economic growth, fulfilling the aspirations of the people, and ensuring "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas" (Development for All). Within this triad, education was not treated as a siloed welfare sector but as a critical feeder system for the economy—specifically the services economy. The rhetoric shifted from the classical view of education as a tool for enlightenment or citizenship to a more utilitarian view: education as a pipeline for "human capital".

For observers of India’s education policy, the speech was a kaleidoscope of new acronyms and ambitious infrastructure projects. From "University Townships" mirroring industrial corridors to "AVGC Labs" in schools, the proposals signaled a decisive pivot toward integrating the classroom with the marketplace. Yet, beneath the polished surface of these announcements lies a complex web of fiscal adjustments, strategic realignments, and ideological undercurrents that warrant a microscopic examination. The promise of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was a transformation of the Indian mind. The promise of Budget 2026-27 appears to be the transformation of the Indian workforce. The distinction is subtle but profound. As we peel back the layers of the ₹1.39 lakh crore allocation, we find a budget that is as much about construction and real estate as it is about curriculum and pedagogy, and as much about centralizing control as it is about empowering institutions.

The Fiscal Landscape: A Macro View

The headline number is impressive on paper: ₹1,39,289.48 crore allocated to the Ministry of Education. This represents an increase of roughly 8.27% over the Budget Estimates (BE) of 2025-26, and a more robust 14.21% jump over the Revised Estimates (RE) of the previous year. In a political climate where every decimal point of growth is touted as a victory, these figures are designed to project a government deeply committed to the social sector. However, the devil, as always, resides in the details of inflation and GDP ratios. While the nominal increase is visible, the allocation as a percentage of GDP remains stagnant, hovering around the 2.7% to 2.9% mark, far short of the 6% target enshrined in the NEP 2020 and reiterated by education commissions for half a century.

When adjusted for inflation—which has been eroding the real purchasing power of academic institutions—the "record" increase begins to look more like a maintenance grant than a transformative stimulus. The breakdown between the two departments of the Ministry tells a story of divergent priorities. The Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSEL) received ₹83,562.26 crore, an increase of 6.35% over the previous BE. The Department of Higher Education (DHE) saw a sharper percentage rise of 11.28%, receiving ₹55,727.22 crore. This disparity hints at the government's dual strategy: a steady, baseline maintenance of the massive school system coupled with a more aggressive, targeted intervention in higher education to align it with "employability" goals.

The 2026 budget introduces structural pivots—specifically the move towards "University Townships" and the "Education to Employment" committee—that suggest a fundamental rethinking of the role of the state in education. It is a move away from the state as the primary provider of education towards the state as a "facilitator" of educational ecosystems, often in partnership with private capital. This report will traverse these corridors of power and policy to understand not just how much money is being spent, but how it is being spent, and who truly benefits.

School Education: The Foundation and the Facade

The Edifice Complex: PM-SHRI and the Model School Trap

The Department of School Education and Literacy’s allocation of over ₹83,000 crore is historically the highest ever. A significant chunk of this has been funneled into flagship schemes like PM-SHRI (Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India). These schools are envisioned as "exemplar" institutions that will showcase the implementation of the NEP 2020. The narrative here is one of modernization. These schools are to be equipped with smart classrooms, digital libraries, and holistic assessment systems. However, critics argue that the PM-SHRI scheme creates a two-tier system within public education. By pouring disproportionate resources into a select few "model" schools (14,500 across India), the government risks neglecting the lakhs of ordinary government schools that struggle with basic infrastructure deficits like crumbling walls, lack of toilets, and single-teacher classrooms.

The "Shagun" portal, an initiative to monitor school education, ostensibly aims for transparency ("Shala" for schools, "Gunvatta" for quality). Yet, data from the ground suggests that while the digital monitoring infrastructure is robust, the physical reality it monitors is fraying. The budget’s heavy reliance on "model" schemes can be seen as a "facade" approach—improving the storefront while the inventory rots. The opposition to PM-SHRI has been vociferous, particularly from states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, who view it not just as a funding mechanism but as a Trojan horse for centralizing the curriculum and enforcing the NEP 2020 against the federal spirit of the Constitution.

The Digital Divide vs. The Digital Push

A striking feature of the 2026 budget is the obsession with high-tech interventions in schools. The announcement of "AVGC Content Creator Labs" in 15,000 secondary schools is a headline-grabber. The vision is seductive: Indian teenagers in small towns mastering animation, visual effects, and gaming, preparing for the "Orange Economy" (creative economy). This initiative aims to tap into the burgeoning global demand for digital content, projected to require 2 million professionals by 2030.

However, this techno-utopian vision crashes against the hard rocks of the digital divide. Reports indicate that a vast number of rural schools still lack reliable electricity, let alone high-speed broadband required for cloud-based AVGC workflows. The budget allocates capital for the equipment (the hardware) but appears to under-invest in the humanware—the specialized teachers required to instruct students in these advanced fields. Without a massive recruitment drive for technically skilled instructors, these AVGC labs risk becoming "ghost labs"—locked rooms full of dusty computers that no one knows how to use. This mirrors the fate of earlier ICT schemes where hardware procurement was prioritized over capacity building. The criticism from educationists is sharp: "We need teachers, not just terminals."

KVS and NVS: The Crown Jewels Get Polished

The autonomous bodies—Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS)—continue to be the darlings of the central budget. KVS received over ₹10,000 crore and NVS over ₹6,000 crore. These institutions have long been the gold standard of public schooling in India, consistently outperforming private schools in board results. The increased funding here is a positive signal, reinforcing the state's capacity to deliver quality education. However, the contrast with the state-government-run schools (funded largely by states but supported by central schemes like Samagra Shiksha) is stark.

While KVS/NVS serve the children of central government employees and rural talent respectively, they cater to a tiny fraction of the student population. The vast majority of India’s children attend state board schools, which rely on the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. The allocation for Samagra Shiksha saw a modest increase of around ₹4,990 crore , but when adjusted for the rising costs of construction and salaries, it represents a tightening of the belt for the general public school system. The discrepancy in per-student spending between a Kendriya Vidyalaya student and a typical state government school student continues to widen, creating an internal hierarchy within the public sector itself.

Higher Education: The Employability Pivot

The "Service" Station: Education to Employment

The most significant ideological shift in Budget 2026 is the explicit framing of higher education as a feeder for the "Services Sector." The Finance Minister announced the constitution of a high-powered "Education to Employment and Enterprise" Standing Committee. The mandate of this committee is to identify skills required for the services sector and align curricula accordingly. This marks a departure from the Humboldtian ideal of the university as a space for free inquiry and critical thinking. Instead, the university is being recast as a vocational training center.

While "employability" is a valid and urgent concern given India’s youth unemployment crisis, academics fear this pivot will lead to the "corporatization of the syllabus." If the primary metric of a university’s success becomes its placement record in the IT or hospitality sector, what happens to the humanities, the pure sciences, and the social sciences? The fear is that "unprofitable" disciplines will be starved of funds. The emphasis on "skilling" over "educating" suggests a desire for a workforce that is technically proficient but perhaps less critically engaged with social and political issues. The committee’s focus on the services sector—aiming for a 10% global share by 2047—further underscores this instrumental view of education.

University Townships: Real Estate or Academics?

One of the boldest proposals is the creation of five "University Townships" near industrial and logistics corridors. Modeled perhaps on the lines of Knowledge Parks in the West or the Education Cities in the Middle East, these townships are envisioned as integrated zones of learning, living, and working. On the surface, this promotes industry-academia linkage—a long-standing deficit in India. However, critics view this through the lens of privatization and real estate speculation. These townships are likely to be developed through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), where the government provides land (often acquired from farmers) and private players build the infrastructure.

The risk is that these townships become elite enclaves, accessible only to those who can afford high fees, effectively segregating higher education. Furthermore, simply locating a university near a factory does not guarantee innovation. Innovation requires a culture of autonomy, risk-taking, and long-term research funding—elements that are distinct from mere physical proximity. The "Township" model risks reducing the university to a landlord-tenant relationship between the state and private education providers. The Economic Survey 2026 explicitly mentions expanding the PPP model to "socially critical sectors" like education, moving beyond the "asset sale" perception to one of long-term partnership. This signals a structural shift where the state retreats from being the sole provider of higher education infrastructure.

The Decline of the Grants Commission and Learner-Centric Funding

A subtle but telling trend in recent budgets, continued in 2026, is the changing role of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The budget signals a move towards "learner-centric funding" rather than "institution-centric funding". This could mean Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) to students in the form of scholarships or vouchers, which they can "spend" at an institution of their choice. While this empowers the student as a consumer, it destabilizes public universities that rely on steady block grants to pay salaries and maintain libraries. If funding becomes contingent on "market demand" from students, popular courses will thrive while foundational but niche disciplines may perish.

This marketization of higher education funding is a fundamental restructuring of the public university system, pushing it towards a self-financing model that inevitably leads to fee hikes and student debt. The allocation for the UGC itself has seen only modest increases compared to the massive outlays for specific project-based schemes, reinforcing the view that the government prefers targeted, conditional funding over general autonomy-enhancing grants.

Research and Innovation: The Illusion of Abundance

The ANRF Reality Check

The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) was launched with great fanfare as a ₹50,000 crore game-changer for Indian science. However, the budget allocations tell a different story. The allocation for 2026 stands at just ₹2,000 crore, a fraction of the promised amount. The government’s strategy relies heavily on the private sector contributing nearly 70% of the ANRF’s corpus. This expectation is viewed by many scientists as unrealistic. Indian industry has historically been reluctant to invest in basic R&D, preferring to import technology or invest in late-stage product development. By tethering national research funding to private whims, the government risks stalling critical long-term research projects. The "Scientific Temper" of the nation cannot be outsourced to corporate CSR funds.

The PM Research Chair and the Brain Drain

To counter the "brain drain," the budget introduces the "PM Research Chair" with an allocation of ₹200 crore. This scheme aims to attract top-tier Indian diaspora scientists back to Indian universities with high salaries and research grants. While the intent is noble, the scale is minuscule. ₹200 crore spread across the vast Indian higher education landscape is a drop in the ocean. Furthermore, bringing back a few star scientists will not fix the systemic rot—the lack of equipment, the bureaucratic red tape in procuring chemicals, and the delay in fellowship disbursements for PhD students. A "Chair" is useless without a "Lab" and a supportive "Ecosystem." The scheme engages 120 fellows and chairs over five years, a number that is statistically insignificant compared to the thousands of researchers leaving the country annually.

The Decline of Basic Science

There is a palpable anxiety in the scientific community regarding the shift towards "useful" science. The budget prioritizes "BioPharma SHAKTI" (₹10,000 crore over 5 years) and AI Centres of Excellence. These are applied fields with immediate commercial potential. Meanwhile, funding for basic sciences—theoretical physics, mathematics, fundamental biology—has seen stagnation or cuts in real terms. The breakdown of the "Indian Knowledge Systems" (IKS) budget also reveals a paradox. While the rhetoric around IKS is loud, the actual allocation saw a cut from ₹50 crore to ₹35 crore. This suggests that even the government’s ideological pet projects are not immune to fiscal tightening, or perhaps that the IKS rhetoric is more for political consumption than serious academic inquiry.

The cut to the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL) Mysore, from ₹43.50 crore to ₹39.26 crore, further belies the government's stated commitment to promoting Indian languages. It appears that while the "idea" of Indian languages is celebrated, the "institutions" that sustain them are being starved.

The "Orange Economy": A New Frontier or a Mirage?

15,000 Labs and the Gig Worker Dream

The "Orange Economy"—a term used to describe the creative industries (AVGC)—is the new darling of the finance ministry. The proposal to set up 15,000 Content Creator Labs is ambitious. It acknowledges the economic potential of gaming, animation, and digital content, sectors where India has a demographic advantage. However, framing "content creation" as a primary vocational path for millions of school children is controversial. It legitimizes the "gig economy" model of employment, which is often precarious, lacks social security, and is subject to the whims of platform algorithms. By pushing students towards becoming "YouTubers" and "Animators" at the school level, is the state abdicating its responsibility to provide secure, formal employment?

Moreover, the curriculum for these labs is yet to be defined. Will they teach the history of art and storytelling, or just the software buttons of Adobe and Unreal Engine? If it is the latter, we are training technicians, not artists. The "Orange Economy" requires deep cultural literacy, not just digital literacy. The partnership with the Indian Institute of Creative Technologies (IICT) Mumbai is a positive step, but scaling this to 15,000 schools in a year seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to unfold.

The Ideological and Political Battlefield

Saffronization and the "Indianization" of Knowledge

The budget cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader political project of the ruling dispensation. The integration of "Indian Knowledge Systems" (IKS) into the mainstream curriculum is a stated goal of the NEP 2020. Critics argue that this often translates to "saffronization"—the introduction of Hindu nationalist tropes into education. While the budget for IKS was technically cut this year, the policy momentum continues. The new textbooks and curriculum frameworks emphasize ancient Indian achievements while allegedly downplaying or removing contributions from other periods, or scientific concepts deemed "western" or "controversial" (like the recent removal of the Periodic Table and Evolution from Class 10 textbooks, though ostensibly for "syllabus rationalization").

The budget’s silence on strengthening scientific temper—a constitutional duty—is deafening for critics. Instead, the focus is on "validating" traditional knowledge. While exploring indigenous knowledge is valuable, the fear is that it is being done at the expense of modern scientific rigor. The "Scientific Temper" debate has reignited with these budgetary choices, with scientists arguing that a budget that funds "cow science" or "vedic math" at the expense of evolutionary biology is a budget for regression, not development.

Federalism Under Fire: The PM-SHRI Arm-Twisting

A major flashpoint in the post-budget discourse is the relationship between the Centre and the States. Education is a subject on the Concurrent List, meaning both have jurisdiction. However, the Centre uses its "power of the purse" to enforce compliance. Opposition-ruled states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have resisted the PM-SHRI scheme, viewing it as a Trojan horse for the NEP 2020, which they oppose on ideological and federal grounds. Reports suggest that the Centre has withheld funds for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (the lifeline of state schools) to pressure these states into signing MoUs for PM-SHRI.

This "fiscal arm-twisting" is a critical aspect of the budget’s implementation. The Centre allocates money, but attaches "conditionalities" that erode state autonomy. The budget effectively centralizes control over school education policy, turning state governments into mere implementing agencies of a Delhi-dictated agenda. The withholding of funds has led to delays in paying salaries to teachers in schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, creating a direct crisis in the classrooms of opposition-ruled states.

The People’s Perspective: Voices from the Classroom

The Student’s Burden: Fellowships and Fees

For the average university student, the budget offers little relief. The cost of education is rising. Hostel fees, mess charges, and examination fees are hiking annually. The budget’s provision for "Girls' Hostels in STEM" is a welcome relief for female students, but it is limited to specific streams. Research scholars are particularly aggrieved. While fellowship amounts were hiked recently, they have not kept pace with inflation. The irregularity of disbursements—scholars often go months without receiving their stipend—is a chronic issue that the budget does not address with any structural reform. The "PM Research Chair" is for the elite few; the average researcher is still struggling to pay rent.

The "Paper Leak" Generation

The backdrop to this budget is a year of catastrophic examination failures—the NEET and NET paper leaks that shattered the trust of millions of aspirants. The budget makes no specific allocation for reforming the National Testing Agency (NTA) or securing the examination infrastructure. For the youth—the "Yuva Shakti"—the budget’s silence on examination integrity is a betrayal. The "Employment" committee promises jobs in the future, but the youth want fair exams today. The disconnect between the high-flying rhetoric of "Viksit Bharat" and the ground reality of leaked papers and cancelled exams is the defining tragedy of the current educational moment.

The Teacher’s Plight

Teacher unions like AIFUCTO and FEDCUTA have slammed the budget for ignoring the crisis of vacancies. Lakhs of teaching posts in central and state universities lie vacant. The budget pushes for "digital teachers" and "guest lectures" (often via the new "Professor of Practice" norms) rather than filling permanent sanctioned posts. This "contractualization" of the teaching workforce undermines the quality of education. A teacher on a 10-month contract has no stake in the institution and no academic freedom. The budget’s emphasis on "infrastructure" (buildings) over "faculty" (people) is a recurring critique.

Deep Dive: Data and Allocations

To understand the trajectory, we must look at the numbers in the cold light of comparison. The following data presents a clear picture of the fiscal shifts between the previous year and the current proposal.

Table 1: Ministry of Education Budget Allocation (2025-26 vs 2026-27)

Source: Union Budget Documents 2026-27

Analysis: Notice the drop in the Revised Estimates (RE) for School Education in 2025-26 (₹70,567 Cr) compared to the Budget Estimates (₹78,572 Cr). This indicates underspending. The government allocated money but didn't spend it—likely due to the withholding of funds to opposition states or bureaucratic bottlenecks. The "increase" in 2026 is essentially restoring the funding that wasn't spent last year. The apparent generosity of the new budget effectively masks the failure to utilize the previous year's funds, a recurring pattern in India's social sector spending.

Table 2: Key Scheme Allocations Breakdown

Analysis: The massive jump in Atal Tinkering Labs (ATL) confirms the "hardware" bias. It is administratively easier to procure 3D printers and robot kits (capital expenditure) than to reform pedagogy or train teachers (revenue expenditure). The cut in IKS is the surprise anomaly—perhaps indicating that the "saffronization" or "Indianization" is happening through textbook changes (which cost little) rather than expensive standalone schemes.

The Gender Budget: A Critical Lens

The budget for women in education is highlighted by the "Girls' Hostel in Every District" initiative. This is marketed as a step for "Nari Shakti" in STEM. However, a critical analysis reveals limitations. Building hostels is a "safety" measure that addresses the symptom (parents won't send girls away due to safety concerns) rather than the patriarchal cause. Furthermore, why limit this to STEM? Do girls in Humanities or Commerce not need safe housing? The focus on STEM aligns with the "economic utility" view of women—they are valuable to the state if they become engineers who contribute directly to GDP, perhaps less so if they pursue liberal arts.

The Gender Budget analysis shows a 9.37% share of total expenditure. However, much of this is "time-saving infrastructure" (water, LPG) rather than "gender-transformative" education. The "software" of gender sensitization in schools is missing from the budget speech, leaving a gap between the rhetoric of empowerment and the reality of infrastructure-led interventions.

Conclusion: The Verdict on Budget 2026

The Union Budget 2026-27 is a masterpiece of signalling. It signals to the industry that the education system is open for business, with "University Townships" and a "Service Sector" committee paving the way for closer integration. It signals to the middle class that their children will have access to "world-class" infrastructure in the form of KVS, IITs, and new AVGC Labs. It signals to the global community that India is betting big on "Youth Power" to drive its growth story.

But for the student on the margins—the Dalit student in a dilapidated state school, the researcher waiting for a fellowship, the liberal arts student watching their university crumble—the budget offers little hope. The "Great Centralization" is underway, with New Delhi tightening its grip on the classroom through schemes like PM-SHRI and PM-ONOS, bypassing state governments. The "Privatization by Stealth" is evident in the Township model and the PPP push. The "Techno-Solutionism" that champions Labs and AI over teachers remains the dominant dogma. And pervading it all is the "Employment Anxiety"—a desperate attempt to avert a demographic disaster by frantically skilling youth for a service sector that may or may not be able to absorb them.

As India marches toward 2047, the 2026 budget will be remembered as the moment the Indian state decided that the purpose of education is no longer to make a life, but merely to make a living. Whether this strategy creates a "Viksit Bharat" or a nation of over-skilled, under-employed, and critically disengaged youth remains the billion-rupee question. The ledger is balanced, but the future hangs in the balance.

India is gradually making a strong case for itself as a player in the worldwide higher education market. This is mainly due to UGC's 2023 regulations which give reputed foreign universities permission to open their campuses in the country. In line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, more than 15 foreign higher education institutions (HEIs) got the green light to come to India by early 2026, thus raising the question whether this policy initiative can actually help India reduce the number of students going abroad for education.

At the moment, it is estimated that about 1.3 million Indian students leave their home country every year for further studies, causing a loss of billions of dollars in foreign exchange. It is believed that if top foreign universities are persuaded to open their campuses in India, the country's student outflow may be stopped or even reversed and simultaneously, the domestic academic environment may be strengthened.

The updated UGC standards permit top globally ranked universities (top 500 in QS or THE rankings) and specialised institutions, to set up their own campuses in India, thus being completely autonomous, and to offer degrees that are equal to those given at their home countries.

Some of the major ones are Deakin University (Australia), University of Southampton the first one to get started Illinois Institute of Technology (USA), and Monash University and Lancaster University were one of the institutions that have received Letters of Intent in 2025.

Such campuses have the advantage of 100% FDI, complete fee autonomy, and exemption from obligatory land grants, only requiring them to show infrastructure readiness. Education hubs like GIFT City IFSC in Gujarat have become the leading spots by offering tax incentives and regulatory ease to foreign universities for a quick start of operations.

Mr. M Jagadesh Kumar, Chairman of UGC, has hailed the scheme as a bold move to reverse brain drain, enhance research collaboration, and bring global academic standards to India. Foreign universities mention India's demographic dividend as the main reason, more than 650 million people under 35, English, medium instruction, and price factors that are 50, 70% cheaper than the US or UK.

Still, there are issues. Some analysts mention that bureaucratic hurdles, limitations in the recruitment of faculty, challenges in acquiring land, and the ongoing uncertainties about accreditation and quality parity are some of the issues. In addition, there is a worry about the regional imbalance with the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Telangana leading the way, while the eastern and northeastern regions are falling behind.

The UGC's data indicate that foreign campuses might be offering up to 50, 000 seats in areas such as STEM, management, and design that are the most desired by 2030. The real concern is whether India will be able to rival global education centers like Singapore or Dubai, and that will hinge on sustaining policy clarity, investing in infrastructure, and strategically aligning global quality standards with domestic accessibility, particularly since India plans to raise the Gross Enrolment Ratio to 50% by 2035, from 28.4% at present.

Centre has proposed setting up of three new All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and to add 75,000 medical seats over five years. Here's how education stakeholders reacted to the union budget. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has proposed setting up of three new All India Institute of Ayurveda, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. Sitharaman has also announced the setting up of five university townships. The minister has proposed to reduce TCS rate for pursuing education and for medical purposes under the liberalised remittance scheme, popularly known as LRS, from 5 per cent to 2 per cent. The government has also proposed the formation of a high-level committee in the area of 'Education to Employment and Entrepreneurship'. This committee will recommend measures focused on the services sector as a key driver for a developed India.

The Supreme Court's stay on the UGC Equity Regulations did not bring calm to university campuses. Instead, it triggered sharply different responses across India's legacy universities.

At Delhi University, the student groups supported by the Left protested for the regulation which has been stalled for a long time, to be enforced in all institutions, thereby emphasizing the immediate necessity to protect the rights of underprivileged students.

JNU, BHU and DU's responses when combined reflect not merely a disagreement over a regulation, but an even more profound rift in how world's first, class universities at the Indian level conceptualize caste, equity and change.

TORCHES AND SLOGANS AT JNU

In the torchlit passageways of Jawaharlal Nehru University, students called for the government to pass a national law against discrimination in higher education and the complete execution of the UGC Equity Regulations, stating that lack of justice on campus might lead to protests on the streets.

On the other hand, students from the SC, ST, and OBC communities at Banaras Hindu University went on a rally with letters, placards, and references from official reports, demanding an Equal Opportunity Centre, an Equity Committee, and clear procedures for dealing with discrimination.

At Delhi University, the student groups supported by the Left protested for the regulation which has been stalled for a long time, to be enforced in all institutions, thereby emphasizing the immediate necessity to protect the rights of underprivileged students.

JNU, BHU and DU's responses when combined reflect not merely a disagreement over a regulation, but an even more profound rift in how world's first, class universities at the Indian level conceptualize caste, equity and change. One more push against Rohit's murderers, and Manusmriti/Brahminism will burn!)", while protesting.

JNUSU President Aditi Mishra and Former President JNUSU Nitish Kumar said that many cases get stuck in the Supreme Court for years and they questioned the urgency of this case.

They cautioned that the agitation will not be limited to the campus if the UGC Act is left unimplemented it will come out on the streets.

The Secretary of the JNUSU Sunil Yadav, while defending the slogans of the protest, told PTI, "The slogans shouted during the protest are of ideological nature and do not target any specific caste or group. "

BHU'S SUPPORT MARCH FOR EQUITY

Something similar happened at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in Varanasi when not less than thousands of students protested on the streets of the BHU campus.

Hundreds of SC, ST, and OBC students including a large percentage of female students marched in favour of the UGC Equity Regulations and against structural caste discrimination.

Ramji Patel, ex, student of BHU, informed that SC/ST/OBC Unity Forum wanted the university to "immediately constitute an EOC and an Equity Committee, make information public on the website, organise sensitivity programmes, and send timely and transparent reports to the UGC."

They first met at the Vishwanath Temple complex and then proceeded together through the campus to the university gate.

The presence of police was quite large and the proctorial board were kept alert all the time.

Students handed out a letter which alleged structural caste, discrimination in higher education that has been going on for a very long time.

DU JOINS THE PROTESTS

Student groups backed by Left at Delhi University protested against the Supreme Court stay on the UGC regulations and called for their implementation in all universities.

The All India Students' Association conducted marches, drawing attention to data revealing an increase in complaints of caste based discrimination.

Sooraj Elamon, SFI Delhi President, said, "We reject the judicial stay and urge the Supreme Court to protect the constitutional rights of the marginalised students."

The group also called for the UGC regulations to be extended to all institutions.

TEACHERS RAISE DOUBTS

Even faculty voices were uneasy. The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers Association has criticised the UGC Equity regulations for "not even remotely" addressing the discrimination that exists in deep, rooted and systemic forms in higher education institutions. JNUTA also said that it "has not seen the order of the honourable court or the grounds for its order, " and that the statement "is independent of this order and reflects the outcome of the discussion at yesterday's meeting."

The differences are quite significant. The protests at JNU have been framed as a fight for ideological space and the need for immediate implementation of the reform.

The march at BHU is an expression of the plea for institutional support and the development of a system to help marginalised students. In Delhi, it is at once a matter of solidarity as well as a legislative plea.

As protests continue, the debate around the UGC Equity Regulations has moved beyond legality. It now reflects a larger struggle over how universities understand equality, and who gets to define it.

Union Budget 2026, 27 has given a big boost to education by allocating a record amount of 1.39 lakh crore to the sector, an increase of 8.27 per cent over the previous year.

In theory, this is the highest nominal allocation to education in India ever, thus signalling not only an intention but also continuity and political emphasis. But budgets are more than just about the wishes. India's education system is struggling with the fundamental issue of whether this increase in spending will actually change the system or it will only be a means of covering the costs and continuing with the unfinished reforms.

After factoring in inflation, salary revisions, infrastructure costs, and administrative overheads, the real increase in the budget's purchasing power looks rather limited. Hence, the question arises as to whether the schools and universities throughout the country will be able to effectively carry out what has been declared or the declarations themselves will lead to results.

Where the Money Goesand What That RevealsSchool education still commandslargely the funds with an expected expenditure of around 83, 562 crore; higher education, on the other hand, has been allotted a sum of 55, 727 crore. This break, up is a reflection of the massive size of India's school education system and the government's continued focus on schemes related to access, nutrition, and welfare.Programs such as Samagra Shiksha, PM POSHAN, Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas, and PM SHRI schools constitute the major components of the public education grant.

On the other hand, a quick surge in higher education has mostly been seen, thus signaling an underlying concentration on the acquisition of skills, research, and global competitiveness. Nevertheless, the discussion still remains about how this ratio is appropriate for solving India's time- honored problems of the university level like faculty shortage, unequal funding, and governance issues.

Technology, Skills and the Risk of Uneven Progress

Digital learning, artificial intelligence, skilling, and innovation have been highlighted as the major areas of focus in Budget 202627. The installation of AVGC labs in 15, 000 schools and 500 colleges is an example of a step towards acknowledging the creative industries of the future and the job markets.

However, India's previous stands of technology- driven education reforms are like a warning. Lack of dependable digital infrastructure, insufficiently trained teachers, and weak Centre, state coordination could make these initiatives not only ineffective but also more unequal in terms of regional and socio, economic aspects. The first to benefit would be the urban and well funded institutions, whereas the rural and less endowed schools would fall even further behind.

University Townships and Industry Linkages

The plan to build five university townships along the industrial and logistics corridors intends to connect universities, research, and jobs. In principle, it is in line with the global models of innovation clusters.

Nevertheless, the real success factor lies in the practical aspects getting land, cooperation from the states, regulatory clearances, and investments from the private sector. India's experience with large education clusters indicates that overly ambitious timelines and divided governance can lead to the failure of even the most well, intentioned projects.

Girls Education and Student Welfare

The proposal to create a girls' hostel in every district is a direct response to one of the oldest issues that have limited women's engagement in higher education i.e. safety and shelter. By doing so, besides rural and semi, urban girls, the students from these areas will also greatly benefit from the increased enrolment and retention. However, without definite grant deeds, personnel arrangements, and upkeep promises, the facilities may merely serve as tokens rather than agents of change.

Research Funding and Institutional Fragility

The funds allocated for One Nation One Subscription, World Class Institutions, Atal Tinkering Labs, and PM, USHA are the directions of improving research and innovation. However, the competitive funding cannot replace consistent core funding. There are still a large number of universities that are facing the issue of their basic capacity, which grants cannot solve alone.

To sum up, the Union Budget 2026, 27 is more of a reflection of continuity than discontinuity. It reinforces the areas of technology, skills, research, and welfare but leaves aside the issues of deeper structural weaknesses. The real proof will not be seen from the budget papers, but the classrooms, campuses, and student performances where the intention has to meet the execution finally.

In an exclusive step, the government of India through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has partnered with PW (Physics Walla) to offer free coaching. This initiative is widely appreciated by many for being a breakthrough for education access. However, this inclusive Free Coaching Scheme is being called-out as a selective one because it skips general category students. Questions like: Where do we fit in such visions? Are gaining traction. 

The Invisible Struggle of the General Category Student

General Category students are again left out while reserved classes are offered the best of opportunities. For years, General Category students have lived in a policy vacuum. They are presumed to be privileged, financially secure and able to manage on their own. In reality lakhs of them are from lower middle class and middle class families where income is barely sufficient to meet the monthly expenses, leave alone the expense of coaching where it can run into lakhs of rupees. They do not qualify for reservations. They seldom qualify for targeted schemes. And now, they are not eligible for free coaching as well! 

The Brutal Paradox

Competitive exams in India are bloodthirsty. General category students face the maximum cut-offs, full fees, no relaxation in age and no safety net. They are competing for fewer seats and with a stricter set of benchmarks, while often subsisting entirely off family savings or loans for preparation. When the free coaching scheme comes into force without them, it does not feel like moving forward-it feels like one more reminder that they are supposed to suffer quietly.

What makes the situation more difficult is not only exclusion, but invisibility. The plights of General Category students are seldom recognised in policy matters. Their stress is often shrugged off as entitlement. Their failures are explained in terms of their personal shortcomings, rather than systemic gaps. Yet the pressure that they are under is immense financially, emotionally, and psychologically. Studying long hours without institutional support, seeing opportunities pass by on the basis of eligibility clauses, being told again and again to "adjust" takes a toll that is rarely measured.

Free Coaching Scheme is a Needed Intervention

No one is against this initiative. But when support is designed around categories as opposed to economic vulnerability, it risks creating a new imbalance. There are General Category students that are poorer than many who receive aid. There are families one crisis away from collapsing. For them exclusion is not ideological, it is practical, immediate and painful.

Free Coaching Feels Like a Closed Door

Free coaching by Physics Wallah, which is a big step in the education sector by the government of India, is a powerful tool. No one denies that. But when eligibility is framed narrowly, it sends an unintended message to General Category students: “Figure it out on your own.”  At a time when competition is fiercer than ever, when private coaching is unaffordable, and when digital access still costs money, being left out doesn’t just feel unfair. It feels like being forgotten by the system you are asked to trust. 

Equality Shouldn’t Mean Selective Support

The bigger question that India needs to pose to itself is a simple one, but uncomfortably so: if the goal is equal opportunity, why not make financial need the primary filter? Merit cannot be sustained on motivation alone. It requires access, guidance and time, which money often buys. Ignoring this reality does not strengthen the system, however, it diminishes trust in it.

What Can Be Done?

As this government-PW initiative expands, policymakers have an opportunity to correct the course. Inclusion does not mean taking opportunities away from one group in order to give to another. It means opening the lens to the extent that support reaches all students who need it - regardless of category. Without that balance, well-intended reforms run the risk of adding to the quiet resentment, rather than the confidence of the people.

For General Category students, this is no call for short-cuts. It is a plea for fairness. A request to be seen. A reminder that you can't pick and choose for equality and that silence shouldn't be misinterpreted as acceptance.

India Needs To be Practical

If India is indeed to democratize education, the conversation NEEDS to be broadened. And because a system that asks one group to constantly sacrifice and adjust and wait will eventually lose the very faith it depends on. 

General category students are also  students; general category people are also people, then why is sacrifice always expected from them? Why do they need to work harder for something others are getting with less effort? Even when one keeps everything aside, one prominent question still remains: If education promises equal opportunity, why does equality stop at the starting line?

Questions are many, but the answer general  category people get is the same: we believe in inclusivity. But who is willing to scream in the face of our policymakers to tell them that THIS is Selectivity not Inclusivity. 

Do you agree? Share your thoughts via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and get a chance to be featured.