Sanjeev Ahluwalia | India’s Higher Education: Poised For Deep Reforms

Reasonably priced access to higher education is a ubiquitous demand of the middle and the aspiring class, which together comprise just under one-half of the population. The National Education Policy 2020 catered specifically to this demand.

Compared to 700 universities in 2014-15, there were 1,289 universities by 2023-24. The number of colleges and standalone institutions also increased from 38,498 and 12,276 respectively to 48,246 and 15,221 respectively by 2023-24. Higher education became more accessible with the national average availability of universities increasing from 27 to 32 per one lakh population, albeit with wide variations across states showing the role of development policy in higher education. Consider that, Bihar --where Nalanda was once the centre of learning -- has 39 universities, but Gujarat has raced ahead with 107 universities, more than even in Uttar Pradesh -- India’s largest state by population -- with 103 universities.

In this frantic pace of expansion, state governments have done much of the heavy lifting. There are now 926 state universities, near evenly divided between publicly managed and privately managed. Compare this with just 284 Central universities, Institutes of National Importance, private universities and government or government-aided universities.

To effectively manage this growing array of institutions of higher education with some degree of congruity in norms, whilst leaving sufficient room for innovation and fine tuning, the NEP proposed a new architecture of five functionally distinct agencies dealing with oversight and vision, accreditation, regulation, funding, and academic standard setting.

A new Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) would oversee four specialised institutions. First, to manage the regulatory framework, a National Higher Education Regulatory Council is proposed. Second, a National Accreditation Council, which would frame the norms for accreditation of new entities. Daringly, all Higher Education Institutions will henceforth be expected to progressively aim for enhancing their accreditation levels, such that by 2035, they would all become self-governed degree-granting institutions.

Third, a Higher Education Grants Commission would replace the University Grants Commission to fund both development and scholarships. Fourth, and perhaps most interestingly, a new General Education Council would identify outcomes from education (along the lines of outcome-based budgeting). These specific graduate education attributes would be consolidated into a National HE Qualification Framework. This would be synced with a Skills Qualification Framework to ease seamless integration of vocational training with graduate qualifications. The alphabet soup generated is dizzying. Whilst no one would object to specialisation within regulatory organisations, the problem is: how to get the entire, heavy structure onto a uniform performance level.

For the moment, the overhaul awaits parliamentary approval of the HECI Bill 2025. After Parliament approves it, the existing system would be wound down and the new one rung in. With Lok Sabha elections due in 2029, the report card focus of the Narendra Modi administration would surely expedite the new arrangements as a major high-level institutional reform in the educational system.

Till then, the existing regulatory commissions which are based on domains continue their work. UGC, AICTE and NCTE are three pillars of the higher educational system -- each with exclusive mandates, albeit without separate functional specialisations. The University Grants Commission (UGC) oversees both the administration of universities and funds the HEIs. A separate body, the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), governs technical and management education. The National Council for Teacher Education regulates skill development and self-learning for teachers. In sum, they maintain standards, provide accreditation, and quality assurance in their respective areas. These tasks will be hived off to four specialised entities in future under the overall supervision of the HECI.

Cumbersome though the proposed structure appears, it aligns with global best practices, which emphasise the use of delegated powers to match the capacity of each specialised institution. In India this is particularly relevant since ministries are not staffed by specialists, unlike in the developed economies.

Four additional actions should be considered. First, whilst operationalising the five specialised institutions, there should be a corresponding reduction in the size of the ministry of education, which should henceforth devolve all technical decisions to these agencies and cease looking over their shoulder. This is important not only for building up the stature of these new agencies but also to ensure that executive responsibility can be fixed on those responsible for implementation. That the primary demand of the Jantar Mantar “cockroaches” was that the minister in charge take responsibility for examination glitches is telling of consumer expectations. Sufficient powers and responsibility delegated to the institution heads should encourage them to become independently accountable for their shortcomings.

Second, central monitoring appears to have improved and become more transparent. Consider that 99 per cent of universities responded with data for the annual report in 2014-15 but the number of colleges responding was not disclosed. In 2023-24, while 99 per cent universities remained responsive, despite a sharp increase in numbers, the response rate for colleges was 96 per cent and stand-alone institutions 77 per cent.

The availability of granular data at the policy-making levels feeds into continuous system improvement, especially if AI is to be used. This is clearly one area where the government has not been found wanting. Adding trends in student complaints and redressal times and generated data on variance in programme completion times and gap years, using the unique identity marker for each student, could provide new insights into student behaviour. Timely disbursal of scholarships and use of development funds, under the Gati Shakti mode, also reflect the administrative health of the system.

Third, a comprehensive, independent review of the university system -- on the model of the Pratham Report (ASER) for school education -- would be insightful for identifying opportunities for appropriate pedagogy, incentives for research and development and the overall quality of higher education.

Finally, India’s primary national resource is the scale and depth of human capacity. Not enough has been done by successive governments to leverage this natural resource. In comparison, the private sector has led in developing and utilising human resources. It developed a model where supplemental education was affordable because of the globally competitive rates of the workforce. The HECI needs to work closely with state governments, which vary enormously in scale and embedded capacity. Similar “light but tight” arrangements for joint head scratching with the ministries of commerce and industry and industry associations will be helpful. For several years into the future, wages in India will remain competitive. We should leverage and exploit this transitory development benefit, while it is still there, to our advantage.

The writer is Distinguished Fellow, Chintan Research Foundation, and was earlier with the IAS and the World Bank