The Khelo Bharat Niti 2025 (National Sports Policy), passed by the Union Cabinet on July 1, 2025, is a significant milestone aimed at transforming sports in India and building a 'Viksit Bharat'. The policy, particularly for football, adopts a five-pillar approach focusing on sports excellence, social development, economic development, people's movement (community sports), and sports in education. India has expressed interest in hosting the 2036 Olympics, indicating its ambition to become a world leader in sports. The policy also addresses the inclusion of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) talent in national teams, acknowledging the need to strategize within Indian citizenship law and FIFA regulations. Grass-root level development, facilitated by the FIFA Football for Schools (F4S) programme, is making football accessible to children from a young age.
- The Khelo Bharat Niti 2025 (National Sports Policy) aims to transform Indian sports and position India as a global leader, with a focus on football.
- The policy employs a five-pillar approach covering sports excellence, social and economic development, community engagement, and sports in education.
- India's interest in hosting the 2036 Olympics signifies its growing ambition in the international sporting arena.
Maharashtra's proposal to make Hindi the third language in primary education (Grade 1 to 5) has ignited a significant debate. The government's move, aimed at aligning with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, faces strong opposition from linguistic groups and political parties, including the MNS, who fear it undermines Marathi's prominence. Supporters argue it promotes national integration, while critics raise concerns about implementation challenges and potential imposition of Hindi.
- Maharashtra government proposes Hindi as the third language in primary education.
- The move is in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
- The proposal faces strong opposition from linguistic groups and political parties.
The article highlights the need to transform India's Parliament Library and Reference, Research, Documentation and Information Service (LARRDIS) into a proactive research hub. Despite its efficiency, LARRDIS is currently reactive and operates in isolation, limiting its capacity for anticipatory policy analysis. To improve lawmaking quality and accountability, LARRDIS should emulate global best practices from services like the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) and Argentina's Scientific Office for Legislative Advice (OCAL). This involves fostering partnerships with academic institutions, think tanks, and experts, and delineating its mandate, users, and protocols. Such a reform is crucial for bridging information asymmetry and strengthening public trust in parliamentary processes.
- Parliament's LARRDIS needs to evolve from a reactive service to a proactive research hub for better lawmaking.
- Current limitations include operating in a silo, minimal partnerships, and lack of anticipatory policy analysis.
- Global models like EPRS and OCAL demonstrate how parliamentary research services can collaborate with external institutions.
Indian universities have significantly improved their standing in the QS international rankings, with 54 institutions now in the top 1,500, up from 11 in 2015. IIT Delhi (Rank 123) leads among Indian institutions. This improvement reflects their adaptation to global norms, particularly in student-faculty ratios and international diversity. However, challenges persist, including less emphasis on original research in universities compared to research institutes, and fewer international students and faculty. The article suggests that with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 emphasizing research, and increased focus on building global research networks and industry collaborations, Indian universities are poised for further improvement.
- Indian universities have shown significant improvement in QS international rankings, with 54 institutions now in the top 1,500.
- Key parameters for ranking include academic reputation, research impact, diversity, student outcomes, and campus sustainability.
- Challenges remain in areas like fostering original research within universities and attracting international students and faculty.
India's sports policy journey reflects its socio-economic development, initially prioritizing basic needs over sports post-independence. Despite hosting the first Asian Games in 1951, a dedicated Department of Sports and the first National Sports Policy (NSP) emerged only in 1984, followed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). The 1990s saw sluggish progress, but post-2000, a dedicated Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports was formed, and a revised NSP (2001) set clearer goals. Schemes like TOPS, Khelo India, and Fit India Movement have since boosted elite athlete support and mass participation. With the NSP 2025 announced, India now actively pursues its bid to host the 2036 Olympics, signaling a renewed commitment to sports.
- India's sports policy evolved from a period of neglect post-independence, with initial focus on nation-building.
- Key milestones include the first National Sports Policy in 1984 and the establishment of the Sports Authority of India (SAI).
- Post-2000, a dedicated Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and revised policies aimed at mass participation and international excellence were introduced.
Despite India's constitutional commitment to social justice and reservation policies for SCs, STs, OBCs, and EWS, central universities and premier institutions consistently fail to fill reserved faculty positions. Significant vacancies persist across various categories, particularly at senior levels, highlighting a structural disparity. Systemic barriers include institutional autonomy, varied enforcement of UGC guidelines, the contentious "13-point roster system" which reduces reserved positions, and allegations of bias in selection processes. Addressing this requires stricter enforcement, revisiting the roster system, ensuring diversity in selection committees, and proactive political enforcement to align recruitment practices with social justice goals.
- Central universities and premier institutions show a persistent failure to fill reserved faculty positions for marginalized communities.
- Significant vacancies exist across SC, ST, OBC, and EWS categories, especially at senior academic levels.
- Systemic barriers include institutional autonomy, inconsistent UGC guideline enforcement, and the controversial "13-point roster system."