India’s revamped higher education framework introduces a series of structural changes designed to enhance accessibility and flexibility for students. Biannual admissions, offered in both July/August and January/February, are set to reduce waiting times and align more closely with global academic cycles. Key reforms, including multiple entry and exit points and the formal recognition of prior learning, offer greater adaptability, allowing students to seamlessly resume interrupted studies or explore interdisciplinary interests. The most notable of these changes is the ability for students to pursue two undergraduate or postgraduate programs simultaneously, a feat previously unimaginable within traditional academic structures.
At the heart of these reforms lies the Academic Bank of Credit (ABC), a digital registry that aims to store and transfer academic credits across institutions. The system will be managed through the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR), linked to Aadhaar, India’s biometric identification system. Through APAAR, students are assigned a unique 12-digit ID, granting them centralized online access to their academic records, thereby promising greater convenience and flexibility.
Yet, beneath the surface of these innovations lies a deeper, more troubling trend. While framed as a tool for streamlining transitions and enhancing educational accessibility, the integration of APAAR is part of a larger, less visible process of commodification, datafication, and privatization, forces that risk undermining the very ethos of education as a public good.
The Datafication of Education
Though APAAR is ostensibly a voluntary system, evidence suggests that many schools subtly coerce parental compliance, often requiring written explanations for opting out. This underlying pressure raises important questions about the true intentions behind the centralization of student data. Linking APAAR to Aadhaar further intensifies concerns, given the latter’s controversial history of privacy violations and its potential for surveillance. What were once personal records of a student’s intellectual journey are now exposed to the possibility of misuse, with corporations eagerly positioning themselves to exploit this data for targeted marketing and service offerings.
In this landscape, APAAR stands as a powerful symbol of the commodification of education, reducing the complex, transformative process of learning into a series of digitized, transactional credits. This modular approach mirrors broader capitalist trends, where efficiency and standardization increasingly overshadow depth and intellectual cohesion. Just as gig work and task-based labor have fragmented employment into piecemeal, market-driven tasks, education risks being restructured into isolated, module-based units, molded to consumer demand. By reducing knowledge to discrete, tradable units, APAAR shifts education away from its essence as a holistic, transformative endeavor, instead rendering it a fragmented, commodified experience.
The recent push for students to enroll in the ABC system, upload their academic data, and obtain an ABC ID marks a deeper integration of capitalist logic into education.
To understand how these shifts reflect broader capitalist dynamics, it’s essential to trace the historical evolution of labor subsumption and its manifestation in educational processes. The recent push for students to enroll in the ABC system, upload their academic data, and obtain an ABC ID marks a deeper integration of capitalist logic into education. This mirrors the rise of monopoly capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where labor shifted from ‘formal’ to ‘real’ subsumption under capital. In this transformation, control over labor moved from workers to management, just as control over academic data, once managed individually by students and institutions, is now subsumed into centralized platforms governed by administrative protocols.
In 2023, the Department of School Education and Literacy, under India’s Ministry of Education proposed an Education Ecosystem Registry (EER) to establish a unified system for tracking learner outcomes and supporting policy decisions in the education sector. Currently, data regarding students, teachers, and institutions is fragmented in standalone, siloed systems, which are updated periodically. This fragmented data is not readily reusable by other systems, lacks real-time updates, and is vulnerable to tampering. The proposed registry aims to integrate these disparate systems into a unified framework, enabling decentralized management and addressing challenges such as access, record-keeping, authentication, and tracking academic progress.
The consultation paper from the National Education Technology Forum (NETF) advocates for the creation of interoperable registries that can be accessed and reused across schools, colleges, universities, teachers, and administrators. The NETF emphasizes the need for consent-based data-sharing, aligned with the Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA), ensuring compliance with India’s 2022 Digital Protection Bill. It is proposed that the creation of a “Unified Learner Passport (ULP)” will streamline the use of academic and skilling credentials, making them accessible and verifiable for students and allowing for seamless transitions between institutions. This includes a decentralized approach to managing student data, with infrastructure hosted at the state or board level but managed at the institutional level. The system will use a “Common Unique Identifier” for seamless integration across various systems and allow for easy portability of data through digital interfaces. The credentials will be securely stored in a system like DigiLocker.
Much like scientific management in industrial production, which fragmented labor into repetitive, quantifiable tasks, the push for standardized academic data reduces the educational experience to a collection of data points—credits earned, and IDs assigned.
Much like scientific management in industrial production, which fragmented labor into repetitive, quantifiable tasks, the push for standardized academic data reduces the educational experience to a collection of data points—credits earned, and IDs assigned. This process strips away the individuality and complexity of learning. In this system, students, like workers in capitalist production, become parts of a larger machine, where their intellectual labor is distilled into measurable, commodified outputs. The more automated and bureaucratized the system becomes, the more it enforces a form of deskilling in education, where knowledge—once the product of social, intellectual labor—becomes a mechanical process governed by algorithms and data points.
This trend parallels the industrial-era shift to deskilling, where workers’ specialized knowledge was replaced by tasks broken into manageable components, performed by less skilled labor. The push for standardized academic data serves the same purpose: to centralize control, and minimize the value of social knowledge. It renders students interchangeable parts within a capitalist system that prioritizes technical capacities being distributed on a “need-to-know” and “on-demand” basis, retroactively projecting a cheap labor force through multiple avenues of accreditation and exit. The very essence of education as a form of intellectual development risks being reduced to a process of digital data collection, where students are merely producers of data in the form of “academic credits.”
Moreover, just as early computing machinery sought to optimize labor efficiency by mechanizing tasks, modern educational technologies aim to streamline administrative processes. While these systems may reduce labor costs and increase efficiency, they also subsume human intellectual labor within a purely technical, standardized framework. The logic of capitalist production—where labor and knowledge are commodified, tracked, and optimized for profit—has now firmly entrenched itself in the educational sector, transforming students from knowledge creators into mere data generators.
Privatization and the Marketization of Knowledge
The growing privatization of higher education in India is further entrenched by policies promoting financial autonomy and the growing dependence of institutions on market forces. The dismantling of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and its replacement by the Higher Education Funding Agency (HEFA) signaled a dramatic shift towards privatization, where grants are increasingly replaced by loans.
The ongoing debate over the privatization and commercialization of higher education in India has deepened with successive government policies and structural changes, particularly the introduction of the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) in 2017 and its role in increasing financial pressure on students. This shift is part of a broader trend of reducing government funding for education and pushing public universities to seek loans and increase fees to meet infrastructural and operational needs.
The connection between India’s higher education policies and the World Trade Organization (WTO) lies primarily in the context of India’s commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which is a key framework for regulating international trade in services, including education. In 2005, India began offering its higher education services under GATS, which marked a significant shift towards the commercialization and liberalization of the sector. When India committed to GATS, it agreed to allow foreign universities to operate in the country, which would eventually open the Indian education market to global competition.
The government sought reforms that would meet the demands of international trade agreements, including opening up the sector to private investments and foreign educational institutions. The Higher Education and Research Bill (HER) 2011, which proposed replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC) with the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), was part of this reform trajectory, pushing for a more market-driven, privatized model of education.
Under the WTO framework, education was no longer considered just a public good but as a tradable service. This led to an increased focus on privatization and commercialization, with greater encouragement for public-private partnerships in education. This is reflected in policies like the establishment of the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) in 2017, which replaced grants with loans, encouraging universities to generate funds independently, often by increasing fees or seeking private investments.
As part of the WTO-driven shift, universities and colleges have faced growing pressure to generate their own resources, particularly through raising fees or seeking private sector involvement.
As part of the WTO-driven shift, universities and colleges have faced growing pressure to generate their own resources, particularly through raising fees or seeking private sector involvement. This has led to the privatization of many higher education institutions and an increase in fees, making education less accessible, especially for students from marginalized communities. These students now find themselves burdened with debt, transforming higher education from a public right into an exclusive privilege reserved for the few.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which further pushes privatization and financial independence of universities, aligns with the objectives set out by WTO commitments. It stresses the importance of private philanthropic activity and external funding, encouraging universities to seek resources beyond government support. This policy, along with earlier initiatives like HEFA, reflects India’s long-term move towards an education system that operates more like a market, catering to private interests and aligning with global neoliberal trends, as required by international trade agreements.
This surge in fee-based income coincides with a decline in the use of UGC funds for academic and infrastructural development, raising serious concerns about priorities in higher education financing.
Delhi University offers a stark illustration of these trends. The institution’s revenue from student fees has more than doubled in the past five years, exceeding ₹200 crore in the most recent fiscal year. This surge in fee-based income coincides with a decline in the use of UGC funds for academic and infrastructural development, raising serious concerns about priorities in higher education financing. Institutions are now heavily reliant on students to sustain their financial operations, further burdening them with financial responsibilities.
At the same time, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are blurring the line between public and private interests in education. Private entities are increasingly shaping curricula, fee structures, and institutional policies, subordinating education to the imperatives of the market. This trend mirrors broader capitalist economies, where managerial control erodes worker agency, reducing them to replaceable components within profit-driven systems. Similarly, the privatization of education prioritizes marketable skills over intellectual depth, undermining academic autonomy and reinforcing profit-driven agendas that diminish academic rigor and equity.
The commodification, datafication, and privatization of education in India represent a dangerous intersection of capitalist logic and academic practice. As education is reduced to a system of modular credits, and students are transformed into mere data producers within a market-oriented framework, the very purpose of education—intellectual growth, critical thinking, and the development of a democratic, informed citizenry—faces a serious threat. What began as a public good is increasingly becoming a commodity, shaped by the imperatives of efficiency and profit at the expense of the public interest.
The Modular Trap: Deskilling and Alienation
The education system under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 fractures learning into narrowly defined modules, echoing the “just-in-time” logic of production. In place of profound, integrative education, it promotes light, disposable knowledge tailored to the fleeting needs of the labor market. Students are directed to acquire skills that serve specific occupational requirements, reinforcing dependence on specialized competencies. This approach not only alienates students from a more expansive intellectual framework but also diminishes their ability to critically confront systemic inequalities.
The NEP heralds lifelong learning opportunities, emphasizing vocational training, skill development, and “learn how to learn” strategies. It advocates hands-on experiences in trades like carpentry and metalwork to better prepare students for the workforce, with vocational courses for Grades 6–8 as part of this vision (Section 4.27). The policy also champions lifelong “upskilling,” offering both online and offline options. However, this vision unfolds amid India’s highest unemployment rates in decades, with even skilled workers struggling to find stable employment. Tying autonomy to financial independence could catalyze the privatization of public institutions, potentially leading to funding cuts and closures for lower-ranked colleges, which may be forced toward privatization. The NEP’s use of rankings as a measure of institutional success risks exacerbating inequality in higher education, undermining the quality of education at less prestigious institutions.
The policy introduces flexibility, offering multiple entry and exit points for educational pathways. Students can exit after Grade 10 for vocational training or pursue specialized courses in Grades 11–12. At the undergraduate level, students can leave after one, two, or three years, earning corresponding certifications (Section 11.9). Yet, data from the All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE) reveals a significant gap in educational completion, especially among marginalized communities. Only 6% of Scheduled Tribes (STs), 8% of Scheduled Castes (SCs), 9% of Muslims, and 10% of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) students who begin schooling in Grade 1 finish by Grade 12, a stark exclusion now veiled by terms like “exit/entry options,” “lifelong learning,” and “flexibility.”
The NEP 2020 champions ‘multidisciplinary’ education, using the term 73 times in its framework. This approach includes integrating ‘curricular’, ‘extra-curricular’, and ‘co-curricular’ activities, as well as uniting ‘arts’, ‘humanities’, ‘sciences’, and vocational streams. The creation of Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities (MERUs) aims to foster advanced research, with the goal of establishing one such university in every district by 2030.
Arts and natural sciences continue to be marginalized, not by curriculum design, but by economic priorities that focus more on applied sciences to align with national development agendas.
This multidisciplinary curriculum will include “credit-based courses” and “internships” with local industries to enhance employability. While the elimination of rigid divisions between educational streams has been lauded as a step toward integrating the humanities with other disciplines, the promise of true integration remains elusive. Arts and natural sciences continue to be marginalized, not by curriculum design, but by economic priorities that focus more on applied sciences to align with national development agendas.
The NEP’s emphasis on multidisciplinary learning overlooks a more pressing issue: societal perceptions of education streams will not change unless the relationship between education and employment is fundamentally reconsidered. Although the policy envisions a more holistic educational experience by blending subjects such as physics with finance or history with biology, the previous attempts to introduce multidisciplinary courses have often led to dissatisfaction. The modularization of education, particularly through MOOCs, has promoted market-driven skill development, narrowing the scope of learning and reducing it to short-term employability at the cost of in-depth engagement. Meanwhile, subjects less valued in the job market are deprioritized or discarded, further limiting student choices.
Moreover, the NEP’s push for a four-year undergraduate program with multiple exit points evokes memories of the failed FYUP initiative, which was scrapped after student protests. This emphasis on modular education perpetuates the myth of individual adaptability while sidelining collective action against structural inequalities. Flexibility through prior learning recognition and simultaneous degrees is reimagined as a customizable product, elevating consumer choice over intellectual growth. This reduces education to a transactional exchange of credits rather than a transformative process of learning.
Vocational training, often positioned as a remedy for unemployment, traps students in precarious, low-wage jobs. Far from facilitating upward mobility, these programs deskill the workforce, erode collective bargaining power, and perpetuate exploitative labor conditions.
The higher education financing model promoted by the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) further deepens educational inequities. As tuition fees rise and vocational training dominates, education is increasingly commodified. Vocational training, often positioned as a remedy for unemployment, traps students in precarious, low-wage jobs. Far from facilitating upward mobility, these programs deskill the workforce, erode collective bargaining power, and perpetuate exploitative labor conditions.
The drive for online education further exacerbates these problems, fragmenting learning experiences and absolving the state of its responsibility for equitable education. While digital platforms offer convenience, they also reduce opportunities for deep intellectual engagement. The diminishing role of physical infrastructure—libraries, hostels, research centers—undermines the university’s position as a space for collective inquiry, cultural exchange, and political resistance. Students, atomized into digital silos, are increasingly powerless to organize against privatization or resist neoliberal policies. The shift towards market-driven education diminishes its role as a public good and transforms it into a personalized, individualized pursuit.
The NEP’s reforms are emblematic of a broader neoliberal agenda that prioritizes market-driven efficiency over inclusivity and equity. While features like modular programs and graded autonomy may appear progressive, they threaten to undermine public education in India, transforming it into a commodity available only to those who can pay. To resist this trend, an alternative vision for India’s education system must emerge—one grounded in democratic, equitable, and socially just principles. This vision would require substantial public investment, regulation of fees to ensure accessibility, expanded infrastructure for equitable resource distribution, and a firm commitment to preserving reservations for marginalized groups.
The Role of Technology: Promise or Profit?
The growing reliance on automation and AI in education further complicates this debate. Technology—through online platforms, AI-driven tools, and automated grading systems—holds the potential to democratize access to learning, integrate knowledge, and personalize educational experiences. Ideally, AI could reunify fragmented learning processes, making education more accessible and responsive to individual needs. However, the capitalist framework governing India’s education system distorts these possibilities. Ed-tech platforms like Byju’s exemplify the contradictions within this commercialization: they promise democratization but ultimately prioritize profit, commodifying education, and creating a two-tier system based on financial capability.
While Byju’s claims to democratize learning, its subscription model and reliance on high-priced services create a divide between privileged students who can access personalized learning and those left with limited resources. The platform’s aggressive marketing tactics further exacerbate this divide, positioning education as a competitive, consumer-driven race. The increasing reliance on automation in platforms like Byju’s reduces teachers to facilitators, transforming the learning process into a highly transactional experience that prioritizes marketable skills over intellectual depth.
This trend of digital deskilling—both in ed-tech platforms and public universities—further alienates educators from the process of knowledge production, reducing them to appendages of an educational machine.
This trend of digital deskilling—both in ed-tech platforms and public universities—further alienates educators from the process of knowledge production, reducing them to appendages of an educational machine. In public universities, the rise of contract-based and adjunct teaching further erodes the integrity of teaching roles, leading to a precarious labor force that is increasingly disconnected from long-term educational goals. The commodification of education, driven by market forces and technological innovation, risks stripping away its fundamental role as a transformative, collective public good.
The ongoing struggle against the NEP is not merely a fight over specific policy reforms — it is a fight for the very soul of India’s education system. It calls for collective action from students, teachers, and democratic organizations to resist the commodification of knowledge and to reimagine education as a space for critical thought, creativity, and social transformation. To create an education system that serves all of society, it is necessary to reject neoliberal reforms that prioritize market logic over human dignity and intellectual growth. Only through a commitment to equity, justice, and public investment can we build an education system that empowers all individuals and fosters the development of a free and just society.
In this context, Maya John’s ‘Debating Education in India: Issues and Concerns’ (2023) offers a critical examination of India’s education policy landscape, with a particular focus on the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The book situates these reforms within historical and socio-political contexts, offering a critique of the marketization and digitization of education, which are often hailed as disruptive innovations. The volume counters nostalgic and idealized views of India’s educational past, advocating instead for an education system that prioritizes equity, public funding, and pedagogies that foster critical and compassionate citizenship.
