If India’s AI mandate feels like it arrived overnight, it helps to look at what’s been under construction since 2020. The mandatory AI and Computational Thinking curriculum landing in classrooms this year isn’t a standalone policy — it’s one more layer on a foundation the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 began laying six years ago. So what does that foundation actually look like today, and how solid is it?
A structural shift, mid-rollout
Structurally, the shift has been substantial. NEP 2020 replaced the old 10+2 schooling model with a 5+3+3+4 structure — Foundational, Preparatory, Middle, and Secondary stages designed around how children actually develop, rather than around administrative convenience. The first of those carries the heaviest load: what the Foundational Stage asks of schools is a question of pedagogy, not just timetabling. As of mid-2026, roughly 32 states have adopted this structure, with vocational and skill-based learning now mandated from Classes 6 through 8 and multilingual instruction expanding across CBSE-affiliated and state-board schools alike.
Higher education has moved faster
Higher education has moved even faster in some respects. The Academic Bank of Credits, which lets students deposit and transfer academic credits across institutions, now has over 3 crore registered students, with more than 105 universities — including 19 central universities — adopting the reform. India’s global academic standing has climbed alongside it: 54 Indian institutions now feature in the QS World University Rankings 2026, up from just 28 in 2021.
An uneven foundation
But is the foundation as even as the headline numbers suggest? Not quite. Education spending remains near 2.4% of GDP — well short of NEP’s own 6% target — despite a 64% increase in the union education budget since 2018. And the policy’s most structurally ambitious reform — a single higher education regulator to replace the UGC and other bodies — remains stalled, still pending before a Parliamentary Joint Committee.
What this means for the AI rollout
That unevenness matters for how the AI curriculum lands in practice. A national mandate assumes a reasonably consistent base to build on — trained teachers, functioning multilingual materials, schools that have already absorbed the 5+3+3+4 transition. Where that base is still forming, especially in rural and resource-constrained regions, the AI rollout risks repeating the same uneven pattern NEP itself has shown over six years: strong movement on curriculum, slower movement on the regulatory and financial scaffolding underneath it.
Perhaps the real lesson from NEP’s first six years isn’t about any single reform succeeding or stalling. It’s that ambitious curriculum change and the infrastructure to support it don’t automatically arrive together — and the AI mandate, however forward-looking, will likely follow the same uneven road that every NEP reform before it has travelled.
Further reading
Comments on your Post
On “NEP 2020 at Six: The Foundation the AI Mandate Is Built On”