Daily Editorial Analysis 30 October 2026

The Examination Overload, Its Enormous Cost

Context

• India’s education system has become a relentless cycle of competitive examinations for admission to higher education, research opportunities and employment.
• Examinations such as JEE, NEET, CUET, GATE, CAT, NET and UPSC have become essential gateways to academic and professional advancement.
• Although intended to ensure fairness and uniform standards, their proliferation has created excessive competition, financial inequality, psychological distress and declining institutional credibility.
• India must reconsider whether repeated testing is necessary when school and university assessments already evaluate students’ academic performance over several years.

The Cost of Competition

• The Endless Cycle of Examinations

  • Students must clear multiple examinations throughout their educational journeys.
  • Undergraduate admissions are followed by postgraduate entrance tests, research eligibility examinations and recruitment assessments.
  • Consequently, young people spend years preparing for successive tests instead of concentrating on learning and intellectual development.
  • Limited affordable educational opportunities and repeated attempts further intensify this pressure.

• Examination Failures and Institutional Credibility

  • Separate entrance examinations were introduced because school and university assessments were considered inconsistent and vulnerable to manipulation.
  • However, centralised examinations have also experienced paper leaks, dummy candidates, mark manipulation and cancellations.
  • These failures waste public resources, delay admissions and recruitment, and undermine public confidence.
  • The continuing difficulties of the National Testing Agency (NTA), despite reviews and reform initiatives, demonstrate the need to address systemic deficiencies rather than repeatedly reorganising examination administration.

• Financial Inequality and Psychological Distress

  • Application fees, coaching expenses, study materials and travel impose substantial financial burdens.
  • Economically disadvantaged students cannot always afford specialised coaching or repeated attempts, allowing wealthier candidates to enjoy significant advantages.
  • Thus, examinations intended to identify merit may reward financial resources rather than genuine academic ability.
  • Persistent competition also produces anxiety, exhaustion and fear of failure.
  • Student protests across several States reflect growing dissatisfaction with an expensive and unreliable system. Effective reform must protect both fairness and students’ well-being.

• The Decline of Classroom Learning

  • Examination-centred education encourages students to prepare for tests rather than acquire comprehensive knowledge.
  • Classroom teaching is increasingly overshadowed by coaching-centre drilling focused on speed, question patterns and examination techniques.
  • A single test cannot adequately measure the knowledge, creativity and abilities developed over years.
  • Consequently, continuous academic assessment is undervalued while high-stakes entrance examinations dominate educational decisions. Restoring the importance of classroom learning is essential.

Ways to Use Existing Merit

• Strengthening Existing Assessment Systems

  • India should improve school board and university examinations instead of continually expanding competitive testing.
  • Class XII marks and university CGPAs reflect sustained academic performance, consistency and diligence, offering a broader assessment than a single examination.
  • Differences between institutions can be addressed through standardisation, normalisation, common moderation frameworks, external audits and periodic score equating.
  • Strengthening existing systems would improve reliability without imposing additional examinations on every student.

• Reforming Admissions, Scholarships and Recruitment

  • Higher education admissions should primarily consider moderated school-leaving results. Scholarships and fellowships should recognise academic achievement and consistent performance. Public recruitment could combine verified academic records and structured interviews.
  • Where additional evaluation is necessary, a single national aptitude test at each educational exit level could supplement academic results.
  • This approach would preserve standards while reducing duplication, costs and unnecessary competition.

Global Practices

• Many countries rely primarily on school-leaving results for university admissions, supplemented by references, essays and relevant aptitude or language tests.
• Although admission systems differ, international practices demonstrate that repeated examinations are not the only means of maintaining standards.
• India must adapt suitable approaches to its large population, regional inequalities and intense competition.
• A balanced system should combine reliable academic records with limited, purpose-specific assessments, ensuring transparency without repeatedly testing the same competencies.

Conclusion

• India needs structural reform rather than repeated administrative adjustments. Excessive examinations increase financial inequality, psychological pressure and institutional distrust.
• The solution lies in strengthening school and university assessments, securing examination processes and holding testing agencies accountable.
• Merit should reflect knowledge, consistency and ability, not repeated success in high-pressure examinations.
• By reducing unnecessary tests and restoring confidence in existing educational institutions, India can develop a fairer, more affordable and learning-centred education system that promotes genuine merit and equal opportunity.

The Examination Overload, Its Enormous Cost FAQs

Q1. What is the major problem with India’s examination system?

Ans. The major problem is the excessive proliferation of competitive examinations at different educational and professional levels.

Q2. How do multiple examinations affect students?

Ans. Multiple examinations cause financial burdens, psychological stress, anxiety and intense competition.

Q3. Why are centralised examinations losing credibility?

Ans. Paper leaks, dummy candidates, mark manipulation and examination cancellations have weakened public confidence.

Q4. How can India restore academic merit?

Ans. India can restore academic merit by strengthening school and university assessments through standardisation, moderation and continuous evaluation.

Q5. What is the main objective of examination reform?

Ans. The main objective is to establish a fair, affordable and learning-centred education system that recognises genuine merit.

Source: The Hindu

Disinvestment as Key Economic Strategy

Context

• India’s fiscal management in 2026–27 faces challenges arising from global economic uncertainty, high energy prices and concerns over a deficient monsoon.
• Rising expenditure commitments and modest revenue growth have increased the importance of alternative revenue sources.
• In this context, disinvestment and asset monetisation have emerged as important instruments for strengthening government finances and advancing economic reforms.
• The proposed sale of the government’s stake in IDBI Bank could help exceed the annual disinvestment target while reinforcing investor confidence.

Disinvestment Performance and Fiscal Pressures

• According to DIPAM data, the Centre mobilised ₹62,124 crore through disinvestment and asset monetisation between April and September 2026, including ₹55,757 crore from disinvestment.
• This represented 78% of the annual budget target of ₹80,000 crore, even before accounting for IDBI Bank sale proceeds.
• However, fiscal pressures remain significant. Net tax revenue grew by only 3.4% and non-tax revenue by 3.2% between April and August 2026, while capital expenditure increased by over 18%.
• The fiscal deficit had already reached 42% of its budgeted level, highlighting the need to balance development spending with revenue mobilisation.
• Disinvestment can provide additional resources without increasing government borrowing. Nevertheless, asset-sale proceeds are generally non-recurring and cannot replace sustainable revenue growth.

Disinvestment as a Structural Reform

• Disinvestment should not be viewed merely as a means of meeting fiscal targets.
• It is a structural economic reform aimed at unlocking public assets, improving corporate governance, widening ownership and introducing market discipline.
• The 2021 New Public Sector Enterprise Policy envisages a bare minimum presence of public-sector enterprises in strategic sectors, encouraging private participation elsewhere.
• Similarly, the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) seeks to unlock capital from mature public assets.
• NMP 2.0 has established a target of ₹16.72 lakh crore for FY2026–30, following the achievement of 90% of Phase 1’s target.
• The 2022 LIC IPO demonstrated how public offerings could attract first-time retail investors and policyholders, broadening participation in capital markets.
• While monetisation unlocks value without necessarily transferring ownership, privatisation involves transferring government ownership or control to private investors.

Demand-based Approach

• Until October 2026, disinvestment receipts had largely come through Offer for Sale (OFS) mechanisms, which broaden ownership without fundamentally changing enterprise management.
• The proposed IDBI Bank strategic sale, following Air India’s privatisation in 2022, represents a significant step towards deeper private-sector participation.
• It could establish the foundation for Privatisation 2.0, based on investor participation, professional management and time-bound implementation.
• Two reforms could strengthen this approach.
• First, the government should adopt a demand-based disinvestment strategy, assessing investor interest before selecting enterprises for sale.
• Priority should be given to companies attracting credible bids at reasonable valuations. Investor feedback could help identify regulatory and procedural obstacles.
• Second, a rolling three-year privatisation programme would provide predictability and sufficient time for investors to conduct due diligence, encouraging wider participation and better price discovery.

Calibrated Disinvestment and Institutional Reform

• Since privatising several public-sector enterprises may take years, calibrated disinvestment can serve as an interim measure.
• According to CII estimates, reducing government ownership to 51% across 95 listed PSEs could generate approximately ₹9 lakh crore, while retaining the government’s position as the largest shareholder.
• Enterprises with government holdings of 75% or less could be prioritised during the first two years, followed by those with higher holdings.
• A dedicated institutional body, comprising a ministerial board, industry experts and professional management, could coordinate the process, ensure accountability and minimise administrative delays.
• However, decisions must consider strategic importance, financial viability, employment and public interest.

Fiscal Prudence and the Way Forward

• Disinvestment cannot justify fiscal complacency. Economic shocks can increase deficits and public debt, with consequences extending beyond the immediate crisis.
• Excessive dependence on asset sales could also undermine sustainable fiscal management.
• The government must maintain fiscal discipline, strengthen revenue mobilisation and manage borrowing responsibly.
• Adequate resources must remain available for healthcare, education and infrastructure without crowding out private investment.
• Transparent valuation, competitive bidding, regulatory certainty and safeguards against undervaluation are equally essential to ensure that public assets generate fair returns.

Conclusion

• Disinvestment and asset monetisation can strengthen India’s public finances while improving public-sector efficiency.
• The proposed IDBI Bank sale offers an opportunity to exceed annual targets and reinforce investor confidence.
• However, lasting benefits require a transparent, demand-driven and time-bound privatisation framework, supported by professional management and institutional accountability.
• Ultimately, disinvestment must advance both fiscal consolidation and structural economic reform.
• Combining asset sales with sustainable revenue growth and responsible expenditure can encourage private investment, unlock public wealth and support India’s long-term development.

Disinvestment as Key Economic Strategy FAQs

Q1. What is the main objective of disinvestment?

Ans. Disinvestment aims to unlock public assets, improve efficiency and widen private-sector participation.

Q2. How much did the government mobilise through disinvestment and asset monetisation in April–September 2026?

Ans. The government mobilised ₹62,124 crore during this period.

Q3. What is the objective of the 2021 New Public Sector Enterprise Policy?

Ans. The policy envisages a bare minimum presence of public enterprises in strategic sectors.

Q4. What is Privatisation 2.0?

Ans. Privatisation 2.0 is an investor-driven approach based on professional management and time-bound implementation.

Q5. Why is fiscal prudence important?

Ans. Fiscal prudence ensures sustainable public finances and adequate investment in healthcare, education and infrastructure.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›

Administrative Reforms 3.0 – Why India Needs to Reform the Reformer

Context

• The announcement of Administrative Reforms 3.0 by the Cabinet Secretary has renewed the debate on India’s governance and institutional efficiency.
• Despite several initiatives aimed at improving the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), simplifying regulations and strengthening administration, India continues to face bureaucratic hurdles, weak firm dynamism and uneven economic growth.
• The limited impact of previous reforms is not merely due to faulty rules or administrative inefficiency but also to deeper structural problems in the political economy and the government’s approach to governance.
• Therefore, reforms must address not only administrative rules but also the institutional environment and ideology underpinning them.

Structural Weaknesses in India’s Business Environment

• The IMF and India’s Economic Survey 2025-26 highlight persistent weaknesses in the business environment.
• For example,
  • Regulatory burden: Indian firms face longer customs delays than their international peers, while senior management spends considerable time complying with regulations.
  • Low firm dynamism: Firm entry and exit rates remain below 1%, compared with 8–13% in comparable economies.
  • Zombie firms: Around 15% of firms qualify as zombie firms, indicating weak productivity and inefficient resource allocation.
  • Rent-seeking behaviour: Regulatory arbitrage, protected profit margins and firm-specific concessions often take precedence over productivity enhancement, competition and learning-by-doing.
• Core concern: Political patronage, rent-seeking and perceived preferential treatment of certain business groups undermine fair competition and weaken the effectiveness of administrative reforms.

Limitations of Earlier EoDB Reforms

• The government has introduced several formal regulatory and procedural changes, for example,
  • Tax reforms: Consolidation and simplification of parts of the tax system.
  • Labour reforms: Consolidation of labour laws into four Labour Codes.
  • Corporate reforms: Simplification of company incorporation procedures.
  • Decriminalisation: Removal of criminal penalties for several minor regulatory offences.
  • Environmental regulations: Changes aimed at easing compliance requirements.
• However, these measures have been accompanied by new complexities, for example,
  • Unclear and frequently changing Quality Control Orders (QCOs).
  • Uncertainty and inconsistency in tax enforcement.
  • Concerns over retrospective taxation.
  • Expansion of detailed regulations affecting businesses and ordinary citizens.
• Consequently, formal simplification has not necessarily translated into easier compliance or greater institutional efficiency. This contradiction is a return to “Maximum Government, Minimum Governance.”

Why Have Administrative Reforms (ARC 1 and 2) Failed to Deliver?

• Political economy of rent-seeking:

  • Merely centralising the distribution of economic rents does not eliminate rent-seeking.
  • Multiple actors across different levels of government continue to extract rents.
  • Even digitised governance mechanisms can be bypassed through informal networks and discretionary interventions.
  • Political influence can weaken competition, accountability and market discipline.

• Confusing rule changes with institutional reforms:

  • Changing formal rules does not automatically transform the institutions responsible for implementing them.
  • Institutional culture, enforcement mechanisms, accountability and administrative incentives determine actual outcomes.
  • China’s experience illustrates the importance of the broader institutional environment in facilitating economic dynamism.
  • Measuring reform through the number of amended rules or simplified procedures overlooks the actual experience of citizens and businesses.

• Human resource and bureaucratic challenges:

  • Identification of bureaucrats with different orientations towards administrative functioning points towards an underlying human resource management problem.
  • Administrative reforms must address bureaucratic attitudes, institutional incentives, accountability and capacity-building rather than focusing exclusively on procedural changes.

Three Foundational Principles for Effective Governance

• Presumptive trust in citizens:

  • Citizens should be treated as autonomous individuals capable of managing their own affairs.
  • Excessive suspicion, documentation and compliance requirements increase transaction costs and administrative discretion.
  • Governance should move towards trust-based regulation, with intervention based on evidence of non-compliance rather than blanket suspicion.

• Decentralisation of governance:

  • Decision-making should be transferred to the appropriate levels of government.
  • Excessive centralisation weakens local accountability, responsiveness and administrative efficiency.
  • The spirit of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments must be strengthened through genuine devolution of functions, funds and functionaries to Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies.
  • Greater autonomy for States and local governments is essential for cooperative and participatory governance.

• Minimise unnecessary surveillance and control:

  • Excessive monitoring and regulatory control increase compliance costs and discourage entrepreneurship.
  • Expanding information collection can increase discretionary state intervention rather than improve governance.
  • The state must distinguish between legitimate regulation and unnecessary interference in citizens’ and businesses’ activities.

Conclusion

• India’s challenge is not the absence of administrative reforms but the gap between formal policy changes and their actual implementation.
• Although mission-mode implementation has delivered outcomes in selected sectors, such as highways and certain areas of industrial policy, these achievements do not eliminate the need for broader institutional reforms.
• Administrative Reforms 3.0 must therefore focus on reforming the institutions, incentives and governing philosophy of the state itself.
• For these reforms to produce meaningful outcomes, India needs to move beyond top-down procedural changes towards structural and institutional transformation, which is essential for achieving a dynamic economy and responsive governance.

Administrative Reforms 3.0 FAQs

Q1. Why have successive EoDB reforms failed to generate adequate firm dynamism in India?

Ans. Due to regulatory uncertainty, rent-seeking, uneven enforcement, political patronage and weak institutional accountability.

Q2. What is the difference between procedural reforms and institutional reforms in governance?

Ans. Procedural reforms simplify rules and processes, whereas institutional reforms transform administrative culture.

Q3. How does excessive centralisation undermine democratic decentralisation in India?

Ans. It weakens the autonomy, financial capacity and accountability of local governments.

Q4. Why is presumptive trust in citizens essential for good governance?

Ans. It reduces unnecessary compliance burdens, limits bureaucratic discretion, promotes individual autonomy, etc.

Q5. What should be the key priorities of Administrative Reforms 3.0?

Ans. Strengthening institutional accountability, decentralisation, civil service capacity, regulatory predictability, etc.

Source: IE