Congress-ruled States to adopt ‘action plan’ against RSS agenda in education

1. At a Glance

• On 29 September 2026, the Congress leadership met the Chief Ministers and Education Ministers of Congress-ruled States. They agreed that each CM would prepare an education "action plan" within a month. The stated goal is to push back against what the party called the RSS's "divisive agenda" in education, and to make these States "model States" for education. [1]
• The episode is a new round in the running Centre–State dispute over education policy. Earlier flashpoints were the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the MoUs required under the PM SHRI scheme, and how central funds under Samagra Shiksha are linked to these conditions. [2][3][4]
• Why it matters for UPSC: it covers cooperative vs. confrontational federalism, education's place in the Concurrent List, conditional central transfers, and the politics of curriculum and ideology in public education (GS-II). [3]

2. Why in the News

• 29 September 2026 (Tuesday), New Delhi: Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress president) and Rahul Gandhi (Leader of the Opposition, Lok Sabha) met the CMs and Education Ministers of Congress-ruled States. Priyanka Gandhi (Wayanad MP), party general secretaries and the leaders in charge of those States also attended. [1]
• The leaders reportedly advised the States not to implement the "Sangh Parivar's agenda" in education and to follow "student-centric" policies instead. [1]
• A PTI photo with the report shows CMs D.K. Shivakumar, Revanth Reddy and Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu at the meeting. [1]
• K.C. Venugopal (general secretary, organisation) set out the outcomes in a statement:
• State-level education seminars with education experts and stakeholders. [1]
• CMs to prepare a "thorough action plan" "within a month", based on inputs from those seminars. [1]
• A national-level seminar with experts to design how the plans will be rolled out. [1]
• CMs to give presentations on how the RSS agenda is "polluting" young minds. The source text is cut off at this point. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• NEP 2020 is the Union government's overarching education policy. The Union reports that implementation is under way in school education. [6][7]
• 2021: The Union Cabinet approved continuing the Samagra Shiksha scheme from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026. It was "fully aligned" with NEP 2020. [4]
• 7 September 2022: The Union Cabinet approved the PM SHRI (PM Schools for Rising India) scheme. It aims to upgrade over 14,500 schools as showcases for NEP 2020. [2]
• To join PM SHRI, States and UTs must sign an MoU with the Union Ministry of Education committing to implement NEP 2020. [2][3]
• February 2024: The Centre raised concerns that Odisha, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Delhi had not signed the PM SHRI MoU, while 30 States/UTs had. [3]
• Opposition-ruled States objected to tying the scheme to NEP adoption. They argued that education is in the Concurrent List and that States should keep flexibility. [3]
• May 2026: The Centre planned a fresh push for the PM SHRI rollout in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. [5]
• September 2026: The Congress moved from opposing individual schemes to a coordinated, party-wide policy plan across the States it governs. [1]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Constitutional status of education	Concurrent List subject, the basis of State objections [3]
Union nodal ministry	Ministry of Education, Department of School Education & Literacy [2][8]
PM SHRI approval	7 September 2022, Union Cabinet [2]
PM SHRI target	14,500+ schools as NEP 2020 exemplars [2]
PM SHRI condition	State/UT signs an MoU committing to NEP 2020 [2][3]
Samagra Shiksha period	1 April 2021 – 31 March 2026 [4]
Samagra Shiksha outlay	₹2,94,283.04 crore, of which Central share is ₹1,85,398.32 crore [4]
MoU non-signatories (Feb 2024)	Odisha, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Delhi [3]
MoU signatories (Feb 2024)	30 States/UTs [3]
Congress action-plan deadline	Within one month of 29 September 2026 [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Because education is on the Concurrent List, both Parliament and State legislatures can legislate on it. The Union's leverage runs mainly through centrally sponsored schemes and funding conditions, not direct control. [3][4]
• The PM SHRI MoU condition raises a question: can conditional grants be used to push a policy onto a Concurrent-List subject? [2][3]

Ethical / Governance (Federalism)

• The dispute pits cooperative federalism (a common national policy framework) against State autonomy (policy flexibility for the States). [3]
• The Congress plan is a party-coordinated bloc of States. That points to more partisan federal conflict and less bargaining State by State. [1][3]
• The stated aim of becoming "model States" sets up a competitive-federalism frame, where States compete by showing results. [1]

Social

• The dispute is over curriculum content and ideology: the party claims the RSS is pushing a "divisive agenda". [1]
• The declared alternative is "student-centric" policy. How that differs from NEP 2020 in practice is not spelled out in the source. [1]

Economic / Fiscal

• Large central transfers are at stake. Samagra Shiksha's Central share alone is ₹1.85 lakh crore. States that refuse the conditions risk losing scheme funds. [4][3]

Administrative

• The planned sequence runs: State seminars → CM action plans in one month → national seminar → rollout mechanism. Tight deadlines and expert consultation will test how capable State institutions are. [1]
• If the Congress-ruled States do not sign up, PM SHRI coverage stays patchy. The Centre's renewed push in some States shows this problem already exists. [5]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• May 2026: The Centre planned a fresh push for PM SHRI in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. [5]
• 31 March 2026: The approved Samagra Shiksha period ended. The next phase and its conditions are relevant to Centre–State talks. [4]
• 29 September 2026: Kharge and Rahul Gandhi met Congress CMs and Education Ministers and announced the action-plan process. [1]
• By about the end of October 2026: State action plans are due, followed by a national seminar. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Education is a Concurrent List subject. [3]
• PM SHRI stands for PM Schools for Rising India. [2]
• The Union Cabinet approved PM SHRI on 7 September 2022. [2]
• PM SHRI covers more than 14,500 schools. [2]
• PM SHRI schools are meant to showcase NEP 2020. [2]
• To get PM SHRI, a State must sign an MoU with the Union Ministry of Education. [2][3]
• Samagra Shiksha was continued for 2021-22 to 2025-26 (1 April 2021 – 31 March 2026). [4]
• Samagra Shiksha's total outlay was ₹2,94,283.04 crore. [4]
• Samagra Shiksha's Central share was ₹1,85,398.32 crore. [4]
• In February 2024, 5 States/UTs had not signed the PM SHRI MoU: Odisha, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Delhi. [3]
• In February 2024, 30 States/UTs had signed the PM SHRI MoU. [3]
• The Congress general secretary (organisation) who announced the plan is K.C. Venugopal. [1]
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha in September 2026 is Rahul Gandhi. [1]

8. Why the Real Fight Is About Money, Not Just the Syllabus

• The Centre's main tool is holding back scheme money
• Tamil Nadu did not sign the PM SHRI MoU. It says the Centre then held back ₹2,151 crore of its Samagra Shiksha money for 2024-25 [9][10].
• Kerala said about ₹1,500 crore was held back over PM SHRI and planned to go to court [12].

• So a State that says 'no' to NEP-linked conditions pays for it through its school budget. It is not only an argument about ideas.

• One scheme's condition is being used to block another scheme's money

• Samagra Shiksha is the big, general school-education scheme. PM SHRI is a separate scheme for selected schools (see Section 10 of the note).
• Tamil Nadu argues that the conditions to adopt NEP 2020 fully and sign the PM SHRI MoU were not part of the original Samagra Shiksha scheme, and that the State never agreed to them [9].

• A Parliamentary committee agreed on this point. It said holding back Samagra Shiksha funds because a State did not sign an MoU for a separate scheme like PM SHRI is "not justifiable" [11].

• Going to court is slow, and the State bears the cost of the wait

• Tamil Nadu asked the Supreme Court to declare the withholding "unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable" [9].
• The Court refused an urgent hearing [10].
• While the case waits, the money stays stuck. Teachers' salaries, textbooks and school repairs paid through the scheme feel the gap first.

9. Why Congress States Have More to Lose Than Tamil Nadu Did

• These States are not on the list of those who refused
• The Congress-ruled States at the meeting were Karnataka, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh [1].
• None of them was among the five States/UTs that had not signed the PM SHRI MoU in February 2024 [3].

• So they are not starting from outside the system, like Tamil Nadu and Kerala did. Any real 'action plan' means pulling back from commitments they already made.

• Pulling back puts their money at risk

• Tamil Nadu and Kerala show what can follow: funds held back and long court fights [9][10][12].

• The action plan is due within a month [1]. That is too short to plan for losing central funds.

• The next Samagra Shiksha phase is where the pressure will come

• The approved Samagra Shiksha period ended on 31 March 2026 [4].
• The conditions for the next phase will decide how far a State can change course and still get central money.
• Watch these conditions more closely than the party's statements.

10. The Centre's Strongest Argument — and Where It Falls Short

• The Centre's case, in its best form
• NEP 2020 is a national framework (a common set of rules and goals). Common standards help a child who moves between States [6].
• Central money is taxpayers' money from the whole country. It is fair to ask that it be spent in line with national policy.
• Samagra Shiksha itself was approved as "fully aligned" with NEP 2020 [4]. So the link to NEP is not a new, hidden condition.

• Thirty States/UTs signed the PM SHRI MoU [3]. This suggests most States found the terms acceptable.

• What is right about it

• Conditional grants (money given only if the State meets certain terms) are a normal part of centrally sponsored schemes. Asking for results in return for money is fair.

• The Congress plan is also partisan. It is a party setting education goals for governments, with a stated aim of opposing the RSS [1]. Swapping one ideology for another does not remove politics from classrooms.

• Where it falls short

• Linking scheme money to NEP is one thing. Holding back a different scheme's money to force an MoU is another. A Parliamentary committee called that second step not justifiable [11].
• Education is on the Concurrent List, so States also have a legal role [3]. If a Concurrent subject is run mainly through money conditions, the States' role is weakened in practice, even though the law stays the same.

11. What Would Make a 'Model State' Claim Believable

• Congress CMs should write a State Education Policy, not only a political statement
• Tamil Nadu released its own State Education Policy in the middle of the NEP dispute [13].

• A written policy gives the Centre, the courts and parents a clear document to judge. A presentation about how the RSS is 'polluting' minds [1] does not.

• The plans must say what 'student-centric' means, with numbers

• The party has not explained how its approach differs from NEP 2020 [1].
• Each plan should set targets people can check, such as learning levels and enrolment, and name the agency that will measure them.

• Without targets, no one can test the 'model State' claim.

• The Union Ministry of Education should separate Samagra Shiksha money from PM SHRI

• This is what the Parliamentary committee pointed to [11].
• The Centre can keep NEP conditions inside PM SHRI, which is optional. It should stop using the core school scheme as pressure.

• This lowers the stakes for children, whichever side wins the policy argument.

• Both sides should take disputes to a forum, not only to court or the media

• The Supreme Court's refusal of an urgent hearing shows courts are slow for fund disputes [10].
• A standing Centre–State forum on education funding could settle conditions before money is held back. Today the fight begins only after funds stop.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: ₹2,151 crore of Samagra Shiksha funds (2024-25) allegedly held back from Tamil Nadu for not signing the PM SHRI MoU [9][10]
• Data: About ₹1,500 crore allegedly held back from Kerala over PM SHRI [12]
• Data: Samagra Shiksha Central share ₹1,85,398.32 crore (2021-26) — the money at stake in NEP-linked conditions [4]
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary committee, 2025 — holding back Samagra Shiksha funds from States that did not sign the MoU for a separate scheme like PM SHRI is "not justifiable" [11]
• Law/Case: Education in the Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule) [3]; Tamil Nadu's 2025 Supreme Court suit asking the Court to declare the withholding of funds unconstitutional [9]
• Comparison: Tamil Nadu's own State Education Policy (2025) — a State writing its own policy instead of adopting NEP 2020 [13]
• Scheme: PM SHRI (optional, needs an MoU) vs. Samagra Shiksha (core school funding) — the dispute is about using the first to control the second [2][4][11]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II:
• Federalism: functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States; issues and challenges in the federal structure.
• Government policies and interventions in education.

• Issues relating to the development and management of Education.

• GS-I (secondary): communalism and secularism, where the ideological framing is relevant.

• Likely question stems: 1. "Education being in the Concurrent List has turned Centre–State relations in the sector into an arena of contestation rather than cooperation." Critically examine, with reference to NEP 2020 and conditional central schemes. 2. Should central transfers under centrally sponsored schemes be tied to State adoption of national policy frameworks? Discuss in the context of PM SHRI. 3. How can competitive federalism in education be kept from becoming ideological polarisation of curricula? Suggest institutional safeguards.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• NEP 2020 (main features): the policy at the centre of the contest. [6]
• Samagra Shiksha: the main funding tool linked to NEP alignment. [4]
• PM SHRI and its MoU dispute: the direct precedent for Centre–State friction. [2][3]
• Seventh Schedule and the Concurrent List: the constitutional basis of shared power over education.
• Centrally Sponsored Schemes and fiscal federalism: how conditional grants affect State autonomy.
• Three-language formula disputes: a parallel NEP-linked flashpoint with States.
• Role of NCERT/SCERTs in curriculum and textbook revisions: where the "ideology in education" debate plays out in practice.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Education is in the Concurrent List, not the State List. Aspirants often assume it is a purely State subject. [3]
• PM SHRI vs. Samagra Shiksha. PM SHRI is a separate scheme for upgrading 14,500+ specific schools. Samagra Shiksha is the broader integrated school-education scheme. Do not treat them as the same. [2][4]
• Congress plan vs. law. The Congress "action plan" is a party-political initiative, not a statutory or Inter-State Council mechanism. Do not describe it as a formal federal institution. [1]
• Samagra Shiksha's end date is 31 March 2026, not 2025. Also, the Central share (₹1.85 lakh crore) is different from the total outlay (₹2.94 lakh crore). [4]
• The list of non-signatory States changes over time. The February 2024 list is a snapshot, so check the latest status before quoting it. [3][5]