Opinion | India’s Education Crisis, Student Protests, and the Need to Listen

The Prime Minister has finally issued a statement on the concerns raised by students. However, many believe that if such a clarification had come earlier, the protests might not have escalated to the level they did. Students have a legitimate stake in their future and the right to demand accountability.

The protesters were not seeking political power; they were demanding fairness in an education system that has repeatedly come under scrutiny. The recurring allegations of question paper leaks in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), combined with the financial burden borne by families who often take loans to pay for coaching classes, have become a source of widespread frustration. Yet many observers argue that the crisis extends well beyond NEET alone.

The protests also reflected the concerns of students and parents from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Critics have long questioned aspects of the board's evaluation system, claiming that academic pressure and controversial assessment practices have contributed to mental health crises among students, with tragic cases of suicide leaving families devastated.

Supporters of the movement argue that the students were peaceful and educated young citizens raising legitimate concerns about their future. They question whether the use of force against demonstrators was necessary, suggesting that earlier communication from the government could have prevented much of the anger. Many of these protesters are first-time or prospective voters, yet they chose to take to the streets because they felt their future was at stake.

The article also criticizes those who celebrated or justified the use of force against students, arguing that not every government action can or should be defended blindly. It calls for citizens to remain critical regardless of political affiliation, noting that every political party is capable of making mistakes.

Beyond the immediate controversy, the piece paints a broader picture of India's education system. Citing figures reportedly available through NITI Aayog's official reports, it claims that around one million schools operate with only a single teacher, approximately 89,000 schools have closed due to the absence of teachers and students, and nearly 12,000 schools reportedly have teachers but no students. The article argues that these statistics reflect a deeper structural crisis that demands urgent attention.

According to the author, the debate is not primarily about changing governments but about governance itself. Elections will determine political power, but ensuring quality education is the responsibility of those currently in office. The concern, the article argues, is that despite awareness of these systemic problems, meaningful corrective action has been insufficient.

The rising cost of education is another major issue highlighted. Although education should ideally remain accessible, the increasing dependence on expensive coaching centres and private institutions has, according to the article, created an "education mafia." Families reportedly take loans simply to prepare their children for competitive examinations such as NEET, UPSC, and IIT entrance tests.

The article suggests that replacing Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan alone would not solve the problem but could represent the beginning of broader reforms aimed at increasing accountability and curbing malpractice within the education sector.

The discussion then shifts to other citizen-led movements across the country. In Uttarakhand, environmental activists have protested plans to fell thousands of trees for road expansion, while in Bundelkhand demonstrators have opposed developments affecting the Ken River. The author argues that these protests are not demands for regime change but appeals for environmental protection and public consultation. When movements remain non-partisan and raise legitimate concerns, the article asks why governments should not engage with them constructively.

The piece also comments on activist Sonam Wangchuk's prolonged hunger strike. While praising his commitment and describing his 18-day fast as a remarkable act of protest, it criticizes some fellow activists for publicly eating meals near the fasting site, arguing that such actions appeared insensitive and undermined the symbolism of the protest.

Finally, the article welcomes Rahul Gandhi's participation in a public protest, describing it as a positive sign for parliamentary democracy. At the same time, it expresses skepticism that any political leader would govern perfectly if elected. Rather than placing faith in individuals, the author argues that India urgently needs a strong and effective opposition capable of questioning government decisions before major policies are implemented. According to the article, a healthy democracy depends not only on those in power but also on a robust opposition that ensures debate, accountability, and checks on executive authority.

The article concludes that governments inevitably make mistakes, regardless of which party is in office. In a functioning democracy, it argues, constructive competition between the government and the opposition ultimately benefits the public by strengthening accountability and improving governance.