A report unveiled by the NITI Aayog, highlighting the critical reform of the India’s State University system, has emphasized the need for increased autonomy for State Public Universities (SPUs). But at the same time, the suggestion, though presented as innovative, only echo long-standing debates on India’s higher education discourse.
The NITI Aayog report, Expanding Quality Higher Education through State Public Universities (SPUs), states that over 85% of higher education enrolments in India are concentrated in these SPUs. These institutions play a critical role in shaping the nation’s youth and thereby contributing to improving India’s intellectual capital.
The report’s recommendations, focusing on greater autonomy, resource mobilization, and capacity building, present a roadmap for transformation. However, a critical analysis of the report show these suggestions, while well-intentioned, risk intensifying some of the existing inequalities. That is, unless they are balanced by active state support including funding and capacity building, along with critical systemic reforms.
Revisiting familiar recommendations
The call for greater financial and administrative autonomy in the NITI Aayog report echoes longstanding debates within Indian higher education. Historically, policies such as the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) have emphasized similar ideas. The rationale is straightforward: autonomy allows universities to respond dynamically to local needs, innovate, and improve quality.
However, autonomy alone is insufficient. Past experiences in states like Bihar and Odisha demonstrate the risks of financial independence without adequate governance processes and structures. Several SPUs which went the pathway of granting autonomy to introduce self-financed courses seem to have prioritized revenue generation over academic excellence. Without vigorous overseeing and capacity building, autonomy can steer towards mismanagement and a decline in academic quality.
Financial autonomy: A double-edged sword
The report advocates resource generation by expanding self-financed courses, increasing tuition fees, and forging corporate partnerships. While these measures can alleviate short-term financial constraints, they carry risks:
Fee hikes and accessibility: Fee increases disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged students. For instance, recent attempts to raise tuition fees in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra led to widespread protests, underscoring the potential social backlash when quality improvements fail to accompany higher costs.
Over-reliance on self-financed courses: Punjab University, for example, has introduced diploma courses in high-demand areas like artificial intelligence and data analytics to attract private funding. While commendable, such revenue-centric approaches risk sidelining traditional disciplines like humanities, which are perceived as less profitable but remain essential for a well-rounded education.
Corporate partnerships and academic independence: Partnerships with industry, as seen at institutions like Delhi University, can bring valuable resources. However, they may also skew research priorities towards commercially viable projects, undermining academic freedom and fundamental research.
Without addressing these challenges, financial autonomy could undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve.
The state funding imperative
Despite the push for financial self-reliance, the report does not adequately address the critical need for increased state funding. State universities are already underfunded, with many relying on outdated infrastructure and curricula. For example, universities in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh struggle with basic infrastructure, forcing students to migrate to better-equipped institutions in other states.
Even in a relatively better equipped States like Tamil Nadu, SPUs do not have the financial strength or a big war chest to compete with the well funded Centrally funded institutions, or private / deemed universities. So their ability to attract high qualified researchers is getting limited.
The uneven starting points of SPUs highlight the limitations of a uni-dimensional approach. While universities in some States may have the capacity to attract alternate funding, those in economically weaker states lack the foundational resources to do so. Reducing dependency on State grants without addressing these disparities could deepen inequalities across the higher education landscape.
Capacity building: The bedrock of reform
Capacity building is essential to implementing the report’s recommendations, particularly in areas like employability-focused curricula, research ecosystems, and international collaborations. Achieving these objectives requires significant investment in faculty development, infrastructure, and institutional governance:
Faculty development: The Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) exemplifies how continuous professional development can enhance teaching quality. However, most SPUs lack the resources for such initiatives, leaving faculty ill-prepared to adapt to new pedagogical demands.
Research ecosystems: While central universities like IIT Madras have established successful research parks, replicating these models in SPUs requires substantial investment. Many state universities lack even basic laboratory facilities, rendering ambitious research goals unrealistic.
Infrastructure for international collaboration: The push for global partnerships assumes world-class facilities, but most SPUs struggle with functional classrooms, let alone advanced infrastructure. Success stories like Ambedkar University Delhi, which has modernized its campus to attract international collaborators, remain the exception rather than the norm.
Without active state funding and targeted support, these initiatives risk remaining aspirational.
Balancing autonomy and accountability
Autonomy must be balanced with accountability. Experiences from autonomous institutions like Christ University and Loyola College, Chennai, show that freedom can drive excellence if paired with strong governance frameworks. Conversely, unchecked autonomy risks prioritizing financial gains over educational equity.
The report’s emphasis on autonomy also raises concerns about inclusivity. If financial independence leads to higher fees, SPUs may become elitist institutions accessible only to affluent students. This trend is already evident in private universities like Ashoka and Shiv Nadar, which charge prohibitively high fees despite offering quality education.
Learning from global best practices
Internationally, state-funded universities have successfully diversified their revenue streams without compromising on equity or quality. Key examples include:
Endowment funds (United States): Public universities like the University of Michigan have built large endowments through alumni donations and philanthropic contributions, generating sustainable revenue. However, replicating this model in India requires fostering a culture of alumni engagement and offering tax incentives for donations.
Industry partnerships (Germany and Australia): The Technical University of Munich (TUM) collaborates with companies like BMW and Siemens, while Australian universities like the University of Queensland engage industries to fund research and skill development. For SPUs, developing similar partnerships requires foundational investments in reputation and regional industrial ecosystems.
Research commercialization (United Kingdom): Institutions like the University of Cambridge monetize intellectual property through dedicated technology transfer offices. Indian SPUs, however, often lack the expertise or ecosystem for patenting and technology transfer.
Public-Private Partnerships (China): Tsinghua University has leveraged PPPs to build world-class facilities. While PPPs could be a viable option for Indian SPUs, they require transparent governance to prevent commercialization of public education.
The global consensus on public funding
Global experts consistently emphasize the irreplaceable role of state funding in higher education:
OECD reports: The OECD’s Education at a Glance highlights that countries with higher public funding for universities achieve better outcomes and more equitable access. Nordic countries like Norway and Finland, which fully fund public universities, rank among the world’s best in education quality.
UNESCO’s advocacy: UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report warns against over-reliance on alternative funding, highlighting the risks of privatization and exclusion of marginalized groups.
World Bank recommendations: The World Bank advocates a balanced approach, combining alternative revenue generation with robust state funding to ensure equity and sustainability.
So, what could be a balanced approach? Not an easy question to answer, but there could be starting points. For Indian SPUs to achieve the vision outlined in the NITI Aayog report, a hybrid approach is essential:
Increase State funding: Allocate a larger share of GDP (at least 1%) to higher education, focusing on underfunded regions and capacity building.
Promote outcome-based funding: Tie state grants to measurable outcomes like graduate employment rates, research impact, and student satisfaction, similar to Australia’s funding models.
Foster partnerships: Encourage industry collaborations and alumni donations through targeted incentives, while ensuring safeguards for academic independence.
Build research capacity: Establish national research grants linked to publications, patents, and innovation, enabling SPUs to compete globally.
Streamline governance: Simplify bureaucratic processes to allow greater autonomy in fund utilization, coupled with mechanisms for accountability.
Legal reform to use fixed assets: Many of the State Universities in India have vast land resources. Right now they are unable to monetize this in a way that can benefit them financially. It is possible for the States to create legal and regulatory instruments that can help SPUs monetize the lands. For example, a University in a metropolis or large urban area should be able to lease 5 – 10 acres of its land to private organizations that can develop infrastructure that is share by both sides. Additionally it could help the learners and professors to work closely with industry in several innovative ways.
Yes, the NITI Aayog report offers a pragmatic push toward making SPUs self-reliant. However, autonomy and alternative funding cannot replace the foundational role of state support. Global experiences show that sustainable transformation in higher education requires a delicate balance between autonomy, accountability, and public funding. For India, the path forward must prioritize equity, capacity building, and long-term sustainability, ensuring that SPUs can truly become engines of national development.
Published – February 13, 2025 06:03 pm IST
