The annual examination season has once again come and gone, leaving behind its familiar trail of anxiety, celebration, disappointment, controversy and debate. Across the country, millions of students and parents spent months preparing for board examinations, while newspapers and television channels devoted endless hours to discussing pass percentages, cut-off marks, admission prospects and counselling schedules. As always, education occupied the national conversation. Yet, as always, it was education understood in perhaps its narrowest possible sense: examinations.
The recent controversy surrounding the CBSE Class 12 evaluation process provided another reminder of how deeply examinations dominate our educational landscape. Reports of technical glitches in the new On-Screen Marking system, confusion over the treatment of additional answers in internal-choice questions, difficulties with re-evaluation portals and concerns about the accuracy of results quickly became matters of national discussion. The Education Ministry found itself under pressure, students turned to social media to seek answers, and once again the machinery of government appeared preoccupied with the conduct and management of examinations.
One cannot help but wonder whether this is what educational leadership in a nation of more than 250 million school-going children should primarily be about. Every year, enormous attention is devoted to securing examination centres, preventing paper leaks, managing answer scripts, publishing results and conducting admissions. These are undoubtedly important administrative responsibilities, but they are not education. They are merely the mechanisms through which a particular educational system functions. The tragedy is that we have increasingly begun to confuse the machinery with the purpose.
Three young people who asked questions
Ironically, the most inspiring educational story to emerge from this year’s CBSE controversy was not the performance of a topper, nor the announcement of pass percentages, nor even the technological challenges that dominated the headlines. It was the story of three young people who demonstrated qualities that lie at the very heart of genuine education: curiosity, courage, independence of thought and a willingness to question authority when something appears to be wrong.
Vedant Shrivastava, a Class 12 student, found himself at the centre of the controversy when he discovered that he had been provided with another student’s answer script instead of his own. Faced with an apparent error by a powerful institution, he could easily have accepted the situation as unfortunate but unavoidable. Instead, he persisted in seeking answers and publicly raised concerns despite being subjected to ridicule and abuse on social media. What is remarkable is not merely that he identified a problem, but that he displayed the confidence and conviction to challenge an official process that appeared flawed.
Equally remarkable was the role played by nineteen-year-old cybersecurity researcher Nisarga Adhikary, who reportedly identified vulnerabilities in the CBSE’s digital systems and raised concerns about the security of student information. What stands out in his story is not simply technical brilliance but the belief that technical knowledge carries with it a responsibility to serve the public interest. In an age when digital systems increasingly influence every aspect of education, such a sense of civic responsibility may be as important as academic achievement itself.
Interestingly, the story did not end with his criticism of the system. Following the controversy, the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur reportedly invited Nisarga to work with its cybersecurity initiatives and later hired him as an OSINT and Threat Intelligence Engineer. Rather than dismissing a young person who pointed out weaknesses, the institution chose to recognise his abilities and channel them constructively. There is an important lesson here. Education should not merely reward those who fit neatly within existing systems; it should also recognise those who possess the curiosity and courage to improve them.
The third member of this unlikely trio, Sarthak Sidhant, approached the issue with the curiosity of an investigator. By examining public documents and asking difficult questions, he demonstrated a quality that lies at the foundation of both scholarship and citizenship: the willingness to seek evidence rather than accept claims at face value. In interviews, he spoke of rationality, independent thought and the importance of questioning assumptions. Those observations may seem simple, but they point towards a deeper understanding of what education ought to achieve.
What makes these stories particularly significant is that none of the qualities displayed by these young people can be easily measured through conventional examinations. There is no board examination that tests intellectual courage. There is no standardised assessment for curiosity.
We have become an exam obsessed society
This brings us to an uncomfortable reality about Indian education. We have become an examination-centred society to an extent that is rarely acknowledged. Parents, schools, coaching centres, universities, employers and policymakers all operate within a framework that places extraordinary importance on marks and ranks. Parents seek good marks because they open doors to prestigious institutions. Schools celebrate examination results because they attract admissions. Universities rely upon examination scores because they provide a convenient mechanism for selection. Politicians and education boards point to pass percentages as indicators of success. No individual actor is entirely responsible for the situation because everyone is responding rationally to the incentives created by the system itself.
Why we do not generate more original scientific discoveries.
This may also help explain one of the enduring paradoxes of modern India. Ours is a country blessed with extraordinary talent, producing millions of graduates every year and sending students to some of the finest universities and companies in the world. Yet we continue to ask why we do not generate more original scientific discoveries, more breakthrough innovations and more globally influential research. The answer does not lie in any deficiency of intelligence. Rather, it may lie in the fact that innovation begins with curiosity, discovery begins with questioning and progress begins with the willingness to challenge accepted assumptions. These are precisely the qualities that examination-driven systems often struggle to nurture.
The stories of Vedant, Nisarga and Sarthak remind us that education, at its best, is not about compliance but inquiry. It is not about accepting information passively but about engaging with it critically. It is not about reproducing answers that others have provided but about developing the confidence to ask meaningful questions of one’s own. The fact that these lessons emerged from a controversy surrounding examinations is deeply ironic, but perhaps also deeply instructive.
Future belongs to those have the courage to ask the right questions.
As another examination season fades into memory, it may be worth asking whether our national conversation on education has become too narrowly focused on marks, rankings and admissions. The future of a nation is not determined by the efficiency with which it conducts examinations, important though that may be. It is determined by the quality of thinking it cultivates in its young people.
The future will not belong to those who merely answer questions correctly. It will belong to those who have the courage to ask the right questions. In that respect, the three teenagers who challenged the CBSE may have provided one of the most valuable lessons of this academic year.
Note: The ideas, opinions, and perspectives expressed in this editorial are those of the publication. AI-assisted tools may have been used to support research, drafting, and editing.