There was a time when India was a magnet for scholars from across Asia. Takshashila and Nalanda were not universities in the modern sense, but they hosted thousands of students and teachers, and shaped intellectual exchange across East and Southeast Asia. That historical memory is now being invoked again. Chief Economic Advisor V Anantha Nageswaran has argued that India can become a global hub for learning and research. The ambition is credible. What remains uncertain is execution—especially at the level that matters most: the states.
Global higher education is entering a period of churn. Western universities still dominate rankings, but many face shrinking domestic cohorts, fiscal pressure, campus polarisation, and tightening visa regimes. According to the OECD, growth in international student mobility has slowed in several advanced economies. Asia, once largely a supplier of students, is now building institutions and retaining talent.
READ | India’s universities are ageing faster than they can renew
This creates an opening for India. In 2023, more than 1.3 million Indian students studied abroad, according to the Ministry of External Affairs. India is already central to global academic flows. The question is whether it can convert participation into leadership—and attract students and scholars to its own campuses.
Scale without stature remains India’s central weakness
India has one of the world’s largest higher education systems, with over 43 million students enrolled across universities and colleges, according to AISHE 2021–22. Yet scale has not translated into global academic standing. No Indian university features in the global top 50 of the QS or Times Higher Education rankings. Even the IITs and IIMs largely sit outside the top 150.
The reasons are familiar: faculty shortages, limited research funding, and rigid governance. The National Education Policy 2020 acknowledged these constraints and promised multidisciplinary universities, research orientation, and institutional autonomy. Four years on, the binding constraint is no longer intent at the Centre. It is capacity and political will in the states.
Higher education reform lives or dies in the states
While higher education sits in the Concurrent List, state governments control most public universities and colleges. They decide land allocation, infrastructure spending, faculty recruitment, fee structures, and day-to-day regulation. This is why reform outcomes diverge sharply across states.
In many cases, universities continue to be treated as administrative departments rather than academic enterprises. Vice-chancellors are frequently political appointees. Governing boards remain advisory. Financial rules prioritise procedural compliance over academic outcomes. In such conditions, international collaboration becomes cumbersome and global faculty and students remain cautious.
READ | Why India must raise education spending to 6% of GDP
Foreign universities need state capacity, not just central signals
India’s decision in 2023 to allow foreign universities to establish campuses was a necessary signal. But signals matter only if state-level systems respond. Foreign institutions look closely at land acquisition, municipal approvals, local taxation, labour laws, safety norms, and dispute-resolution mechanisms—almost all of which fall under state or local jurisdiction.
If approvals remain opaque or politicised, interest will remain shallow. More importantly, internationalisation cannot become an isolated island of excellence. Foreign campuses will have limited impact if domestic public universities remain underfunded, understaffed, and overregulated. This is where the CEA’s call for states to move from control to stewardship becomes critical—and politically uncomfortable.
Research funding and faculty shortages weaken credibility
Any claim to global academic stature ultimately rests on research intensity. Here, India remains a laggard. Gross expenditure on R&D has stagnated at around 0.64% of GDP, far below China’s 2.4% and the OECD average of 2.7%. More importantly, only a limited share of public research funding reaches universities through competitive, peer-reviewed grants administered by agencies such as DST, DBT, CSIR, and now the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF).
READ | Higher education: How to turn scale into quality
This funding weakness is compounded by severe faculty shortages. State universities and colleges together have tens of thousands of vacant teaching posts. Recruitment is slow, promotion rules are rigid, and incentives for research or pedagogic innovation are weak. States continue to announce new universities while struggling to staff existing ones. Without addressing this constraint, talk of becoming a global research hub will ring hollow.
Accreditation gaps undermine global trust
Autonomy alone does not build credibility. Global students and institutions look for robust quality assurance. India’s accreditation system remains thin and uneven. As of 2023, less than half of higher education institutions had undergone NAAC accreditation, and outcomes are weakly linked to funding, governance reform, or leadership accountability. Domestic rankings such as NIRF, while useful internally, lack international comparability.
For India’s universities to become globally legible, accreditation must become regular, outcome-linked, and insulated from political discretion. Without trusted quality signals, autonomy risks becoming opaque discretion rather than institutional credibility.
The missing international student proposition
Becoming a global education hub also requires a clear proposition for international students. Cost advantage alone is insufficient. Students and faculty evaluate visa certainty, post-study work options, campus safety, housing, grievance redressal, credit transfer, and degree portability. These conditions are shaped as much by state administration and local enforcement as by central policy.
If these everyday frictions remain unresolved, India’s outreach efforts will continue to generate interest without conversion. Aspirations will outpace arrivals.
States can lead—if they choose to
It would be wrong to assume states lack capacity. Reform is politically difficult because payoffs are slow. Yet examples within India show what is possible. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has aligned public universities and colleges closely with industry in engineering, textiles, and electronics. The state records one of the highest gross enrolment ratios in higher education and relatively strong graduate employability, despite operating largely within the public system.
These outcomes reflect sustained administrative focus, merit-based systems, and a willingness to let institutions specialise rather than conform.
The policy test ahead
If India is serious about becoming a global destination for learning, state governments must act decisively on three fronts. First, governance reform must move beyond rhetoric to independent boards and empowered leadership. Second, faculty recruitment and research funding must be treated as strategic investment, not bureaucratic routine. Third, regulation must become predictable and facilitative—especially for accreditation, research collaboration, and international engagement.
The global opportunity the CEA describes is real, but it is also perishable. Other Asian countries are moving faster, offering seamless academic pathways and institutional clarity. India’s advantage lies in its scale, democratic openness, and intellectual diversity. Whether that advantage is realised will depend not on national vision statements, but on whether states have the confidence to let universities breathe—and the discipline to hold them accountable for outcomes.