This paper grapples with a quietly persistent problem in the Indian education system: a deep-rooted crisis of thinking. It traces how historical legacies, conventional institutional structures, and dominant ideological frameworks have together fostered a pedagogy that values silence over introspection. Even as policy documents like the National Education Policy 2020 speak the language of reform and progressive learning, the reality in many Indian classrooms remains largely unchanged. Memorisation continues to overshadow reflection; conformity is rewarded more than curiosity, and debate is often equated with being disrespectful. The core argument here is that the crisis is not just curricular. It stems from deeper epistemological assumptions—the ways in which learning itself is conceived, structured, and then analysed. Drawing on thinkers such as Matthew Lipman, Paulo Freire, and Gert Biesta, the paper approaches critical thinking as more than a cognitive skill. It is understood as a reflective, dialogic, and ethically grounded mode of engagement—qualities that are often sidelined in a system driven by outcomes, metrics, and examination success. There is also a concern about how terms like “critical thinking” have been superficially adopted in national frameworks, such as the NCERT Learning Outcomes, without a genuine shift in pedagogic intent. This tokenism, coupled with the systematic marginalisation of the humanities and philosophical inquiry, has gradually eroded students’ capacity for ethical reflection and civic engagement. What the current moment demands, the paper suggests, is not another layer of reform, but a more foundational rethinking of education itself. This means moving away from a delivery-oriented, standardised model toward one that places inquiry, dialogue, and philosophical contemplation at its core. In a society as plural and contested as India, the cultivation of the capacity to question, to imagine otherwise, and to hold space for dissent is not optional. It is essential—not only for learners to grow, but for democracy to endure.
Singh et al. (Thu,) studied this question.