National Policy on Education 1968: Building a Cohesive and Integrated India

In the early years after independence, India faced a monumental challenge. A country of immense diversity, freshly emerging from colonial rule, needed an education system that could unite its people, uplift its economy, and shape a generation of responsible citizens. The response came in the form of the National Policy on Education, 1968 – the first comprehensive attempt to give direction, structure, and purpose to education in independent India. Rooted in the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, this policy laid the foundation for everything the education system would become in the decades that followed.

The backdrop: Why India needed an education policy 🔗

At the time of independence, education in India was fragmented. Access was uneven, quality was inconsistent, and there was no shared national vision. Poverty levels were staggering – India’s poverty trends peaked at around 61% in 1954-55 and 62% in 1966-67, which meant a vast majority of children had little hope of accessing meaningful schooling. Literacy rates were dismally low, and the colonial-era education system was still oriented toward producing clerks rather than thinkers, scientists, or citizens.

Recognising this, the government appointed the Education Commission of 1964-66, chaired by Dr. Daulat Singh Kothari, then Chairman of the University Grants Commission. The commission was the first to undertake a comprehensive review of education from primary to higher levels, excluding only medical and legal studies. Its landmark report, titled Education and National Development, submitted on 29 June 1966, provided the intellectual scaffolding for the policy that followed.

Two years later, the government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi translated the Kothari Commission’s vision into policy. The result was the National Policy on Education, 1968 – a document that called for a “radical restructuring” of the education system to achieve national integration and greater cultural and economic development.

The core vision: Common citizenship and national integration 🔗

The heart of the 1968 policy was its belief that education could be a unifying force. India is a country of many languages, religions, cultures, and regional identities. Without a shared educational foundation, these differences could easily become fault lines. The policy therefore aimed to promote national progress, foster a sense of common citizenship and culture, and strengthen national integration.

This was not just a feel-good slogan. It meant reorienting curricula, pedagogy, and institutional design toward shared values. The policy placed significant emphasis on the cultivation of moral values, scientific temper, and a closer relationship between education and real life. Education, in this vision, was not merely about passing examinations – it was about nation-building.

Free and compulsory education up to age 14 🔗

One of the most important commitments of the policy was the promise of universal elementary education. Drawing directly from Article 45 of the Indian Constitution, which obligated the state to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14, the policy made this a national priority.

The policy wasn’t merely about getting children enrolled. It aimed to reduce wastage and stagnation – two terms that referred to the high dropout rates and the tendency of students to repeat classes without meaningful progress. The goal was to ensure that every enrolled child would actually complete their prescribed course. This vision eventually paved the way for later landmark legislation, including the Right to Education Act of 2009.

Challenges in realising this goal 🔗

Despite the lofty ambition, the reality was harsher. Resource constraints, poverty, cultural resistance to sending girls to school, and the vast rural-urban divide meant that universal elementary education remained elusive for decades. The policy itself acknowledged these structural barriers but lacked a detailed implementation mechanism – a criticism that would echo through later evaluations.

The three-language formula 🔗

Few provisions of the 1968 policy are as widely discussed – or as controversial – as the three-language formula. The idea was simple on paper: students should learn three languages during their school years to preserve regional identity, encourage inter-state communication, and connect with the wider world.

According to the 1968 National Policy Resolution, students in Hindi-speaking states would study Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably one of the southern languages), while students in non-Hindi-speaking states would study their regional language, Hindi, and English. The policy also encouraged the teaching of Sanskrit, considered an essential part of the country’s cultural heritage.

Why the formula mattered – and why it struggled 🔗

The three-language formula was conceived as a bridge between North and South, between tradition and modernity. It recognised that language is not just a medium of instruction but a vessel of identity. By promoting regional languages, the policy sought to make education more accessible and relevant to children from different linguistic backgrounds, especially in rural areas.

However, implementation faced resistance. Tamil Nadu, under the leadership of Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai, never implemented the three-language formula and continued with a two-language policy of Tamil and English. Critics argued the formula placed an uneven burden on non-Hindi-speaking students while Hindi-speaking states often treated the third language as a formality. Political tensions around language in India remain real even today.

The 10+2+3 educational structure 🔗

Another defining contribution of this era was the standardisation of the school and college system. Before 1968, different states followed different patterns, making inter-state mobility and national benchmarking difficult. The Kothari Commission proposed – and the policy endorsed – a uniform 10+2+3 structure: ten years of general schooling, two years of higher secondary education with some specialisation, and three years of undergraduate study.

This structure became the foundation of Indian schooling for more than five decades. The 10+2+3 pattern was gradually adopted across all states and union territories, bringing much-needed uniformity to the education system. It offered a common foundation for all students while allowing flexibility for specialisation at higher levels.

Teachers at the centre of reform 🔗

The 1968 policy recognised that no education system can rise above the quality of its teachers. It therefore pushed for improvements in teacher education, better service conditions, and greater academic freedom. Adequate emoluments and academic freedom for teachers were among the core tenets of the policy.

The Kothari Commission had proposed a standardised pay structure with minimum pay scales in the ratio of 1:2:3 for primary, secondary, and higher-level teachers. The 1968 policy carried this forward, aiming to professionalise teaching and attract talent. This was one of the earliest attempts to treat teaching as a respected profession rather than a default career for the underemployed.

Science education and quality textbooks 🔗

The architects of the 1968 policy understood that a modern India needed scientific capability. The policy therefore gave much greater attention to science and technology, aligning education with the country’s developmental goals. This reflected the broader Nehruvian vision of building a scientifically literate nation, which had already led to institutions like the IITs and NCERT.

The policy also stressed the need for producing high-quality books for children and low-cost textbooks for schools and universities. This was a quiet but crucial intervention. Quality textbooks meant students from poorer backgrounds could access the same knowledge as those in elite schools. It was a direct push against the academic inequality that had defined the colonial system.

Adult education and the fight against illiteracy 🔗

The policy extended its reach beyond children. It called for the liquidation of mass illiteracy and provision of continuing education for functional literacy among employees in commercial and industrial establishments. Adult education was framed not as a social welfare add-on but as a developmental necessity.

The policy also promoted part-time education and correspondence courses with the same status as full-time courses, making education accessible to working adults, women, and rural populations who could not attend regular institutions. This was a forward-looking stance for its time.

Equal educational opportunity 🔗

Equity was central to the 1968 vision. The policy sought to correct regional imbalances, admit students on merit to all schools including public schools, and protect the interests of socially deprived sections. Special attention was given to education for students from rural, backward, or tribal areas, as well as the girl child and children with disabilities.

This emphasis on equity laid the moral and legal groundwork for later policies that would target caste, class, and gender disparities more explicitly. Without the 1968 framework, movements like universal enrolment drives and mid-day meal schemes would have had a much weaker foundation.

The 6% of national income commitment 🔗

One of the boldest financial commitments of the policy was the aspiration to raise education spending to 6% of the national income. The Kothari Commission had argued that investment in education was not an expense but a long-term investment in the nation’s future.

In reality, this target has remained elusive. Even decades later, the 6% GDP target for education remained unmet, and successive policies have had to restate the same ambition. Still, the 1968 policy deserves credit for setting a benchmark that continues to shape national education budgeting debates.

Legacy and limitations 🔗

The 1968 policy was not perfect. Its critics noted that the general formulations of the policy did not get translated into a detailed strategy of implementation, accompanied by specific responsibilities and financial and organisational support. Problems of access, quality, quantity, utility, and financial outlay accumulated over the years, eventually forcing the government to introduce a new policy in 1986.

Yet the achievements cannot be overlooked. The 1968 policy was the first comprehensive attempt to imagine Indian education as a national project. It established that education was a central government concern, not just a state subject. It gave the country a common structural framework, promoted equity, championed science, and recognised teachers as the backbone of the system. Every subsequent policy – the NPE 1986, its 1992 revision, and even the NEP 2020 – has built upon this foundation.

What do you think? Do you believe that the 1968 policy’s vision of using education as a tool for national integration remains relevant in today’s fragmented information landscape? How would you balance regional linguistic identity with the need for a shared national educational framework?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_on_Education
2. https://onlineschoolsindia.in/school-guide/key-highlights-of-the-national-policy-of-education-1968/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kothari_Commission
4. https://educationforallinindia.com/1968-education-policy-and-after/
5. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/NPE-1968.pdf
6. https://theiashub.com/free-resources/post-independence/national-education-policy-1968-education-reforms-india
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-language_formula
8. https://teachers.institute/growth-and-development-of-educational-management/1968-education-policy-framework-development/
9. https://teachers.institute/contemporary-india-education/kothari-commission-indian-education-reform/
10. https://testbook.com/question-answer/the-1968-national-policy-teacher-education-adopte–5f212c2ad0cbab0d0c051be1
11. https://journal.iujharkhand.edu.in/Dec-2020/The-Significant-Shift.html