Vishleshan for Regulatory Exams, 24 July 2025: National Education Policy & Coercive Bilateralism

To get ready for the UPSC, RBI, SEBI, or NABARD exam, you have to stay updated about key economic and regulatory updates. In today’s edition of Vishleshan, we’ll discuss the National Education Policy – A victim of Ignorance and Coercive Bilateralism: The Era of Weaponised Trade Deals. These issues are highly relevant for all the upcoming competitive exams mentioned above. Keep reading to stay ahead with a clear understanding of these current updates.

Also, know why RBI Grade B Phase 1 Exam: The Silent Eliminator of 99% Aspirants & What is the Finance and Management Syllabus for RBI Grade B Exam?

National Education Policy – A victim of Ignorance

Context: The 2020 policy’s proposals are misrepresented so often that one wonders if its critics have actually read it. Like the Constitution, it often gets unfairly blamed for our own failures.

Link to the Article: Mint

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, now at its fifth anniversary, represents a landmark reform aiming to transform India’s education landscape. While it’s too early to fully assess its long-term impact given its 20-year horizon and the pandemic’s disruptions, tangible efforts are underway on the ground. Despite widespread misinterpretations and political controversies, the NEP is driving three crucial, under-recognized shifts in school education: a system-wide focus on early childhood education, a push for mother tongue-based early literacy, and comprehensive reforms in teacher education.

National Education Policy (NEP) 2020:

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is a comprehensive framework for India’s education system from pre-school to higher education. It aims to address the challenges of the 21st century and prepare students for a rapidly changing world.

Salient Features of NEP 2020:

• Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE): Emphasizes universal access to quality ECCE for children aged 3-8, integrating it into the formal schooling system. The article highlights this as a “system-wide focus on early childhood education (ECE)”.
• Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN): Focus on achieving universal foundational literacy and numeracy for all students by Grade 3.
• New Curricular and Pedagogical Structure: Replaces the 10+2 system with a 5+3+3+4 curricular structure (Foundational, Preparatory, Middle, Secondary stages).
• Multilingualism and Mother Tongue Education: Promotes learning in the mother tongue/local language up to at least Grade 5, and preferably till Grade 8 and beyond. The article discusses “mother tongue-based education in gaining early literacy” as a key shift.
• Holistic Development: Aims for holistic development of learners, integrating vocational education, arts, and sports with academics.
• Teacher Education Reforms: Proposes major reforms in teacher education, including a four-year integrated B.Ed. programme as the minimum qualification for teachers.
• Equitable and Inclusive Education: Focuses on ensuring equitable access to quality education for all students, especially disadvantaged groups.
• Regulatory Reforms: Advocates for light but tight regulation, separation of powers for regulation, accreditation, funding, and academic standards.
• Technology Integration: Emphasis on leveraging technology for education delivery, assessment, and administration.

Evolution and Impact of Education Policies Since Independence:

• Early Policies (Post-Independence): Focused on expanding access to education, especially primary schooling, to address widespread illiteracy. The Kothari Commission (1964-66) played a significant role, leading to the first National Policy on Education in 1968, which introduced the three-language formula.
• NPE 1986 (Revised 1992): Emphasized vocationalisation of education, open learning, and greater equity.
• Impact: Policies since independence have led to significant achievements in increasing literacy rates and school enrollment, though quality and equity gaps persisted. India made huge strides in basic access to education post-independence.
• Challenges Over Time: Historically, India’s education system “has historically neglected” the early childhood phase (ages 3-8). Also, it has not adequately implemented “mother tongue-based education,” exacerbating the “crisis we have in basic education”. Teacher education has been “marred by poor quality and corruption” for decades.

Why Such Policies are Important for the Country:

• Human Capital Development: Education policies are fundamental for developing a skilled, knowledgeable, and adaptable workforce, which is crucial for economic growth and competitiveness in the 21st century.
• Social Equity and Inclusion: They aim to reduce disparities in access to education, promoting social mobility and creating a more equitable society.
• National Development: Education fosters critical thinking, innovation, and active citizenship, contributing to overall national development and democratic values.
• Addressing Future Challenges: Policies like NEP 2020 are designed to prepare the youth for emerging challenges and opportunities, including those arising from technological advancements and global shifts.

Analysis of the Article: Decoding the NEP 2020’s Ground-Level Progress and Challenges

The article, written by an NEP drafting committee member, offers an insightful assessment of the NEP 2020’s implementation in school education, highlighting three under-recognized positive shifts while also addressing common misinterpretations and challenges.

1. Assessment of NEP’s Progress and Time Horizon:

• “Too Early to Tell” (with caveats): The author acknowledges that it’s “too early to tell” the full effect of NEP on Indian education, given its 20-year time horizon and the fact that “two of these five years were roiled by the pandemic,” followed by a year of “recovering lost learning”.
• Assessing Efforts, Not Outcomes: However, it’s not too early to assess “the efforts to bring it to life on the ground,” as NEP set out clearer milestones for implementation.
• Focus on School Education: The author limits assessment to school education, noting NEP is “more transformative for higher education” but chooses to focus on what they observe closely.

2. Misconceptions and Distortions in Public Discourse:

• Misreading/Distortion: A “surprising number of people and institutions are doing things in the name of NEP that are just not there in the policy,” and an “equally large number are attacking it for things that are not even implicitly there”. This often stems from “misreading or deliberate distortion” or simply people not reading the document.
• States’ Contradictory Actions: Some states “boldly declared that they have implemented the NEP fully while having done precious little,” while others “rail against the NEP while implementing many of its recommendations”.
• Examples of Misinterpretations:
  • Three-Language Formula: It became a “political flashpoint,” with critics either unaware of actual provisions or projecting anxieties. The NEP 2020 actually made the three-language formula (a feature since 1968) “more flexible and responsive to local and regional preferences”.
  • Privatization Claims: Claims that the policy promotes privatization are “baffling to anyone who has actually read the document, which emphasizes strengthening public education”.

3. Three Under-Recognized Shifts Driven by NEP in School Education:

1. System-Wide Focus on Early Childhood Education (ECE):
   • Why it’s important: Research shows ages 3 to 8 are critical for every dimension of child development (physical, cognitive, social, ethical, emotional). India’s education system historically neglected this phase.
   • NEP’s Impact: Spurred by NEP, there is “widespread work on curricular transformation, infrastructure upgrades and teacher development for ECE,” including in the “vast public anganwadi system”. This is laying the foundation for a “truly equitable and effective system,” benefiting “children from vulnerable and disadvantaged communities and homes the most”.
2. Policy Push for Mother Tongue-Based Education in Early Literacy:
   • Why it’s important: Evidence is clear that “children learn best in a familiar language”. India previously failed to implement this adequately, exacerbating basic education crisis.
   • NEP’s Approach: The NEP effectively tackles the “multilingual reality of our classrooms” and aspirations for learning English.
   • Expected Impact: As states adopt this approach alongside foundational literacy, numeracy, and teacher support, “we are likely to see an improvement in basic educational outcomes”.
3. Far-Reaching Changes in Teacher Education:
   • Why it’s important: Teacher education has been “marred by poor quality and corruption” for decades, being “at the heart of our troubles in school education”.
   • NEP’s Reforms: The NEP has “confronted all the issues in teacher education head-on”. It introduces four-year integrated programmes in top universities as the “benchmark qualification”. This, combined with “decisive regulatory reforms,” has brought India to the “cusp of a new era” in teacher education.

Conclusion:

• Transformative Potential: Much like the Constitution, the National Education Policy has “transformative potential”.
• Call to Action: It is “up to us to make what we will of it. For a start, we should at least read it”. The author emphasizes the agency of stakeholders in realizing NEP’s vision, despite misinterpretations.

In conclusion, the NEP 2020, despite its nascent stage and external disruptions, is driving fundamental, positive shifts in India’s school education by prioritizing early childhood education, promoting mother-tongue instruction, and reforming teacher training. While public discourse is often marred by misinterpretations, the policy’s transformative potential hinges on effective implementation and a collective commitment to its core tenets, ensuring that India’s educational journey truly moves towards equity and excellence.

Coercive Bilateralism: The Era of Weaponised Trade Deals

Context: The consequences of coercive bilateralism are profound. For India, the challenge is to strike a balance between tactical necessity and economic priorities.

Link to the Article: Business Standard

The global trade order is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a significant shift away from multilateralism towards coercive bilateralism, spearheaded by the United States under President Donald Trump. His administration’s imposition and threat of broad bilateral tariffs have compelled numerous countries, including India, to negotiate trade deals under pressure, despite initial resistance. This paradigm shift sidelines the World Trade Organization (WTO) and raises critical questions about the future of fair and predictable global trade rules.

Bilateralism and Multilateralism:

Bilateralism:

• What: Refers to trade negotiations or agreements conducted between two countries (or two trading blocs). It involves two parties agreeing on specific terms for trade between themselves, often through a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
• Importance in navigating challenges: Allows for tailored agreements that address specific needs and sensitivities between two partners. It can lead to faster deal-making and potentially deeper integration in specific areas. The article highlights that the US is using its market access to force other countries into bilateral deals.

Multilateralism:

• What: Refers to trade negotiations or agreements involving multiple countries (more than two), typically under the framework of an international organization like the World Trade Organization (WTO). It emphasizes non-discrimination (most-favoured-nation principle) and common rules for all members.
• Importance in navigating challenges: Provides a stable, transparent, and predictable rules-based trade architecture, reducing uncertainty for businesses. It offers equal footing for all members, including smaller economies, protecting them from the power asymmetry of larger nations. It also provides a dispute settlement mechanism to resolve trade conflicts fairly.

Shift in Global Order: The article notes a “deeper shift in the global trade order” as the US, which previously “advocated multilateralism, spearheading the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO,” has now “eroded” that vision. This shift began in the 1990s towards bilateral agreements and accelerated under Trump with unilateral tariffs and the paralysis of the WTO’s appellate body.

India’s Approach to Managing Geo-Political and Economic Challenges

India’s foreign policy has historically balanced various approaches to navigate complex global challenges:

• Non-Alignment Movement (NAM): Historically, India was a founding member of NAM, which advocated for independence from Cold War blocs, allowing India to maintain strategic autonomy and engage with countries across the geopolitical spectrum. This is a foundational principle of India’s approach to global affairs.
• Regional Blocs (SAARC, BIMSTEC):
  • SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation): Focuses on regional cooperation in South Asia. While facing challenges, it represents India’s commitment to regional integration.
  • BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation): A more active regional bloc focusing on Bay of Bengal littoral and contiguous regions, emphasizing economic and technical cooperation. India’s engagement here indicates its “Act East” policy and regional connectivity focus.
• BRICS: India is a founding member of BRICS, an alliance of major emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and recently expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Indonesia as full members). India leverages BRICS to advocate for a more multipolar world order, reforms in global governance, and increased South-South cooperation.
• Close Ties with Countries like Russia and Iran (despite US sanctions): India maintains strategic partnerships with countries like Russia (for defence, energy) and Iran (for energy and connectivity, e.g., Chabahar Port), often navigating complex geopolitical dynamics and the threat of US sanctions. This demonstrates India’s commitment to its strategic interests and maintaining diversified relationships. The article indirectly touches on this by mentioning Trump’s ire over the BRICS summit’s criticism of the bombing of Iran.

Why is USA Imposing Tariffs on the Entire World?

The US imposing tariffs on the entire world, particularly under the Trump administration, is driven by a complex set of economic and political motivations:

• “America First” Policy: A core tenet of the Trump administration, prioritizing US domestic industries, jobs, and economic interests over multilateral trade commitments.
• Reducing Trade Deficits: A belief that tariffs would reduce the US’s large trade deficits with various countries, especially China, by making imports more expensive and encouraging domestic production.
• Perceived “Unfair” Trade Practices: A contention that many trading partners engage in “unfair and reciprocal” trade deals, high tariffs on US goods, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers. The tariffs are a “blunt instrument” to force others to “lower your tariffs, or we will raise ours to match”.
• National Security Concerns: In some cases, tariffs were justified on national security grounds, particularly in sectors like steel and aluminium.
• Bringing Manufacturing Back: A stated goal was to incentivize US companies to bring manufacturing facilities back to the US from overseas.
• Political Leverage: Tariffs are used as a tool for “coercive bilateralism”, giving the US significant leverage in bilateral negotiations, forcing other economies to “concede on sensitive sectors or face a tariff shock”.
• Lowering US Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to be around 122.46% in 2025. This means the total national debt is expected to be 122.46% of the country’s gross domestic product. Theoretically, increased tariff revenue could contribute to reducing the national debt or deficit. However, this is often a secondary or indirect motivation compared to trade deficit reduction or domestic industry protection. The direct link between tariffs and the US debt-to-GDP ratio as a primary driver is debatable among economists, as tariff revenues are generally a small portion of overall federal revenue, and trade wars can negatively impact GDP, potentially worsening the debt ratio.

Analysis of the Article: Decoding the Era of Coercive Bilateralism

The article argues that Trump’s tariff approach signals a fundamental shift in the global trade order, moving away from multilateralism towards a power-based, coercive bilateralism, with profound consequences for the world and critical challenges for India.

1. The “July 9 Ultimatum” and Pivot from WTO:

• Broad Set of Tariffs: On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced “a broad set of bilateral tariffs that stunned the world”. India faced a 26% tariff, China 34%, and the EU 20%.
• Suspension and Ultimatum: These were suspended for 90 days (until July 9, later extended to August 1) with a “blunt message: Unless the US’ trading partners agreed to ‘fair and reciprocal’ trade deals… the punitive tariffs would take effect”.
• Hard Pivot from WTO: This marked a “hard pivot away from the rules-based trade architecture of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its insistence on non-discrimination,” placing many economies under pressure. The US is “no longer trying to fix multilateralism, it is bypassing it entirely”.

2. Success of Coercive Bilateralism for the US:

• Vietnam Deal: On July 2, Trump announced a deal with Vietnam that “slashed the proposed 46% tariff on Vietnamese goods to 20% (while trans-shipped goods, especially from China, would face a 40% levy)”. In return, Vietnam would offer zero-tariff access to US goods (including large-engine cars), though details are unclear. This was a “political win and a message to others: A deal is possible but only on Washington’s terms”.
• EU and UK Concessions: The EU is “prepared to accept a universal 10% tariff on most exports,” seeking exemptions in specific sectors. The UK agreed to a 10% tariff on cars for improved access to its beef and aircraft engine sectors. Even China negotiated a “limited truce” restoring some rare earth exports.

3. India’s Position and High Stakes:

• Negotiating Under Pressure: India “continues to negotiate under pressure”. American and Indian officials are “scrambling to resolve key differences, particularly over dairy and agricultural imports”.
• Resisting Concessions: India is reportedly “resisting broad concessions in these politically sensitive sectors,” despite the threat of steep new tariffs.
• High Stakes: With “nearly 18.3% of Indian exports headed to the US,” the stakes are high. A “targeted agreement may be necessary to shield key industries from abrupt hikes”.

4. Profound Consequences of Coercive Bilateralism:

• Multilateralism Unravelling: The WTO is being “sidelined,” losing its role as the “anchor of the global trading system”.
• Growing Power Asymmetry: “Smaller economies are now forced to negotiate individually with a superpower, weakening their leverage”.
• Breakdown of Trade Rules Consistency: “The consistency of global trade rules is breaking down.” Countries are being pulled into a “web of inconsistent standards, digital provisions, and tariff exceptions,” threatening the predictability businesses depend on.

5. India’s Challenge and Strategic Imperatives:

• Balance Tactical Necessity and Economic Priorities: India’s challenge is to “strike a balance between tactical necessity and economic priorities”.
• Weighing Concessions: Concessions, especially on “sensitive sectors like agriculture or data governance,” must be “weighed against their long-term economic, political and national-security implications”.
• Multilateral Approach: Beyond bilateral deals, India “must also think multilaterally: Revitalising regional trade pacts, expanding South-South cooperation, and contributing to WTO reform”.

6. The Fundamental Question for Global Trade:

• The article concludes by posing a fundamental question: “Will we normalise a power-based trade order, or recommit to rebuilding a fair, rules-based system?”. This highlights the long-term implications of Trump’s approach defining global trade for a generation, potentially creating agreements “under duress and at speed.”

In conclusion, the US’s pivot to coercive bilateralism, marked by widespread tariff threats, has fundamentally reshaped global trade, sidelining the WTO and creating significant power asymmetries. For India, this presents a critical challenge to navigate negotiations under pressure, balancing the need to protect key industries with the imperative of securing market access to the vast US consumer base. The long-term consequences underscore the urgent need for a renewed commitment to a fair, rules-based multilateral trading system, alongside strategic bilateral and regional engagements.

• Sign Up on Practicemock for Updated Current Affairs, Topic Tests and Mini Mocks
• Sign Up Here to Download Free Study Material