One Policy, Two Realities: A Comparative Study of NEP-2020's Digital Skilling Mandate Across Technical (MCA) and Non-Technical (Commerce/Arts) Disciplines from Colleges in Coimbatore District

Abstract India's aspiration for Viksit Bharat by 2047 hinges on cultivating a future-oriented, technologically proficient workforce, a target that the National Education Policy (NEP-2020) aims to promote through an extensive directive for digital skill development across all sectors of higher education. This document contends that the digital skilling terminology of NEP-2020 is regarded, both in policy and governmental oversight frameworks, as a singular, uniform directive relevant to all fields. This research employs a comparative case-study framework situated in Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu, to examine the implementation of the mandate in a technical discipline (Master of Computer Applications, MCA), where digital proficiency is integral to the curriculum, versus non-technical disciplines (Commerce and Arts), where digital skills serve as an ancillary, supplementary competency. Utilizing the provisions of NEP-2020, national implementation data from the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2023-24, and primary survey data from 22 MCA students, 2 MCA faculty, 28 Commerce/Arts students, and 3 Commerce/Arts faculty/BOS members in colleges of Coimbatore district, the study establishes a conceptual differentiation between "foundational" and "add-on" digital skills, revealing that each produces a distinct employability gap: a currency gap in the technical field, where 63.6% of MCA students had to acquire a crucial skill entirely outside their curriculum despite moderately high ratings for curriculum relevance, and an access-and-integration gap in the non-technical fields, where only 35.7% of Commerce/Arts students believed digital skills were effectively incorporated into their courses, with none of the surveyed Commerce/Arts faculty indicating a Board of Studies syllabus that included compulsory digital-skill courses. The research culminates in tailored suggestions for curriculum development and Board of Studies initiatives, contending that a standardized national skilling directive, lacking disciplinary adjustment, may inadequately serve both technical and non-technical students in various respects.