Last updated:
From Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in 1948 to Dr. K. in 2019. Till Kasturirangan, the commissions have proposed some of the biggest changes in Indian education, from the 10+2+3 structure to the NEP.
Many recommendations – such as a common school system, better teacher preparation, and public spending of 6 percent of GDP on education – have returned repeatedly over the decades without being fully implemented. (file/representative image)
The Centre’s decision to set up a high-level committee headed by Nandan Nilekani to help reform India’s examination and assessment ecosystem has revived a familiar pattern in Indian policy making. Whenever the country has faced a major education crisis – be it weak universities, rote learning, unequal access, outdated school structures or concerns over exam credibility – governments have often turned not just to politicians, but to scientists, scholars, administrators and technocrats.
The Nilekani panel, which comes at a time when public examinations and recruitment exams are under intense scrutiny, is only the latest chapter in a long history of expert-led reform efforts. From Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in 1948 to Dr. K. in 2019. Till Kasturirangan, these commissions have proposed some of the biggest changes in Indian education: the 10+2+3 structure, expansion of science education, university autonomy, activity-based learning, lighter school bags and the recent 5+3+3+4 framework under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
Yet the story is also of incomplete implementation. Many recommendations – such as a uniform school system, better teacher preparation, and public spending of 6 percent of GDP on education – have returned repeatedly over the decades without being fully implemented.
Here’s a look at the seven key committees that sought to reshape India’s education sector.
Radhakrishnan Commission (1948–49): Reconstruction of universities
The first major education commission of independent India was the University Education Commission, headed by the philosopher and future President Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.
The commission included eminent educationists and public intellectuals such as Dr. Zakir Hussain, scientist Meghnad Saha and other prominent university administrators.
It was formed because India inherited a colonial university system that was highly examination-oriented and poorly equipped for research and nation-building.
Key Recommendations
- Greater University Autonomy
- Better pay and service conditions for teachers
- To promote research-oriented higher education
- Creation of a national body to fund and coordinate universities
Effect
Its recommendations had a profound impact on strengthening the University Grants Commission (UGC) and established the principle that universities should be centers of knowledge and research, not mere examination factories.
Mudaliar Commission (1952–53): Reforms in secondary education
Secondary Education Commission is headed by Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar did it. It was formed because secondary education was considered too literary and detached from employment and practical life.
Key Recommendations
- diversification of curriculum
- Introduction to Vocational Education
- reduced ability to memorize
- Improvement in guidance and counseling
- improvement in examinations
Effect
The commission later laid the foundation of the 10+2 structure and encouraged the development of vocational streams in schools.
Kothari Commission (1964-66): The most influential education commission
Widely regarded as the most important education commission in Indian history, the Education Commission (1964–66) was headed by Dr. DS Kothari, the then Chairman of the UGC. JP Naik served as Member-Secretary, and the Commission also included international experts, academicians, scientists and experts associated with UNESCO through several task forces and working groups.
It came at a time when India’s education system was fragmented, inequitable, and poorly aligned with national development goals.
Key Recommendations
- 10+2+3 structure of education
- a common school system
- equal educational opportunity
- Science and Mathematics for all students
- Work Experience and Social Service
- improvement in teacher education
- Public expenditure on education 6 percent of GDP
Effect
The 10+2+3 pattern became the national norm, science education expanded significantly and the National Education Policy was strongly influenced by the recommendations of the 1968 Commission.
The common school system and the 6 percent GDP expenditure target are being cited as incomplete agendas even after six decades.
National Education Policy 1986: Ramamurthy Review (1990-92)
The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986, launched under the Rajiv Gandhi government, was not a commission in itself but a major reform framework. Later a committee headed by Acharya Ramamurthy reviewed it.
The review followed concerns over centralisation, inequality, dropout rates and the quality of school education.
Major recommendations of Ramamurthy Committee
- decentralization of educational administration
- Greater involvement of teachers and communities
- lack of commercialization
- more child-centred education
Effect
The policy was revised in 1992, although many of the decentralization proposals were only partially implemented.
Yashpal Committee (1993): Learning without burden
In the early 1990s, concerns over heavy school bags, excessive homework and cramming led to the formation of a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Yashpal, a renowned scientist and educationist.
Main Recommendation
This report became famous for the phrase “learning without burden”. It proposed:
- reduce textbook load
- making learning activity based
- improvement in board exams
- giving more flexibility to teachers
- encourage understanding rather than memorization
Effect
The report deeply influenced subsequent curriculum reforms and became the intellectual basis for many of the ideas included in NCF 2005.
National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005: Changing the way children learn
The National Curriculum Framework 2005 was developed by NCERT under the guidance of Professor Yashpal. Major contributors included Krishna Kumar, teachers, child psychologists, language experts and educationists.
It sought to move beyond curriculum reform and transform classroom pedagogy.
Key Recommendations
- constructivist education
- connecting knowledge to life outside school
- flexible curriculum
- peace education
- inclusive education
- Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE)
Effect
The NCERT textbooks were rewritten, and the framework significantly changed the language and pedagogy of schooling, although the CCE later became controversial and was weakened.
From TSR Subramaniam to Kasturirangan: The road to NEP 2020
India’s most recent major education reform took place through a two-stage process.
TSR Subramaniam Committee (2015–16)
The committee, headed by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramaniam, included administrators, education experts and policy experts.
Key Recommendations
- Focus on learning outcomes
- teacher’s accountability
- Reintroduction of Detention After Class 5
- Reforms in higher education regulation
- expansion of vocational education
- greater use of technology
K Kasturirangan Committee (2017-19)
The drafting committee for the new education policy was headed by former ISRO chairman Dr K Kasturirangan. The members included Vasudha Kamat, Manjul Bhargava, Ram Shankar Kuril, TV Kattimani, Krishna Mohan Tripathi among others.
Key Recommendations
- 5+3+3+4 school structure
- Universal early childhood care and education
- Basic literacy and numeracy
- multidisciplinary higher education
- four-year graduate program
- Academic Bank of Credit
- National Research Foundation
- A single higher education regulator
- expanded use of technology
Effect
These recommendations became the backbone of NEP 2020, the most comprehensive education policy reform in decades.
a pattern for decades
India has time and again relied on non-political expertise to deal with educational crises, from DS Kothari, Yashpal, K Kasturirangan to Nandan Nilekani.
Some recommendations have clearly changed India over the years:
- 10+2+3 structure
- expansion of science education
- strengthening ugc
- Navodaya Vidyalaya
- NCERT syllabus reform
- 5+3+3+4 structure
- Basic Literacy Initiative
- multidisciplinary higher education reform
But several concerns have reemerged in almost every generation:
- exam obsession
- rote learning
- teacher quality
- Unequal access between government and private schools
- Adequate public funding for education
How did Mandal Commission affect education?
The Mandal Commission (Second Backward Classes Commission, 1979) did not reshape India’s education system like the Kothari or Kasturirangan committees, but it fundamentally changed who gained access to higher education. The Commission, headed by BP Mandal, identified socially and educationally backward classes and recommended measures for their advancement, including reservation in educational institutions, scholarships, hostels and other support mechanisms.
Its most consequential impact came after the 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2005) and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which increased reservation for OBCs to 27 per cent in centrally funded institutions such as central universities, IITs, IIMs and NITs. The Mandal framework changed the social structure of Indian higher education by expanding representation of historically underrepresented communities, making it one of the most influential social justice interventions in the history of India’s education sector.
Decades after its implementation, the Mandal framework remains central to India’s anti-reservation debate as critics argue that caste-based quotas in higher education and public employment can compromise merit, reinforce identity politics and continue to benefit relatively better-off sections within the reserved categories despite the creamy-layer principle. He argues that the expansion of reservation in institutions such as IITs, IIMs and central universities has kept alive concerns about fairness, competition and the balance between social justice and academic standards.
However, proponents counter that historical exclusion, unequal schooling and persistent social disadvantage make reservations necessary to ensure meaningful representation and equal opportunity. As a result, the Mandal Commission continues to shape one of India’s most enduring and polarizing public debates: whether affirmative action should remain primarily caste-based, be more economically targeted, or be accompanied by deeper reforms in schooling and social welfare.
blue moment
The current committee headed by Nandan Nilekani is focused on fine-tuning the credibility and efficiency of India’s examination ecosystem. In this sense, it belongs to a long tradition of expert interventions that began soon after independence.
If the Kothari Commission changed the architecture of Indian education and the Kasturirangan Committee redesigned it for the 21st century, the challenge facing the Nilekani-led effort is different: Can India make its examination system trustworthy, technology-driven and fair at scale?
History offers both hope and caution. India’s education commissions have often produced visionary reports that have reshaped policy language and institutional design. The hardest part has always been implementation. As the country once again turns to a committee of experts, the real question is whether the government can ultimately implement them consistently across the country’s vast and unequal education system.
About the author
Pragati is news editor at news18.com. After heading the Business and Viral section, Pragati now conceptualises, writes and edits long-form features and articles on national and global affairs. She makes sure…read more
read more
