India’s education centres have long been more than just places of instruction. They have been social and cultural anchors. From the renowned centres like Nalanda and Takshashila, where scholars engaged in dialogue with visitors from East and Central Asia, to the entrepreneurial and innovation-driven hubs of contemporary India, universities have always reflected the aspirations of their surrounding communities while shaping them. Such institutions were vital because they were open to ideas, combined with a foundation in societal realities.
Universities do well when they balance academic autonomy and social responsibility. Nalanda did not attract scholars merely because it pursued abstract knowledge. Scholars came because it responded to the philosophical, spiritual, and practical needs of its age. In today’s India, universities must gain relevance by engaging with issues such as poverty alleviation, rural development, technological self-reliance, and national identity.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is rooted in this tradition. It emphasizes interdisciplinarity, collaborative research, and openness to new ideas while encouraging each institution to follow its vision. This delicate equilibrium between academic freedom and accountability, as well as heterogeneity and coherence, keeps universities meaningful to their societies. Indian higher education campuses are vibrant precisely because they have served as forums for exchange, discussion, and creativity.
Such conversations sharpen critical reasoning and nurture democratic values. The substantive issue is not whether universities should welcome tough questions. Of course they should. That is a given. The genuine challenge is figuring out how to turn those questions into something productive that drives reform and sparks innovation. Academic freedom is essential, but it doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want without responsibility.
True self-direction in scholarship flourishes when curiosity is calibrated by rigour and responsibility. A resolute higher education system protects against genuine misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or financial irregularities while ensuring faculty and students can engage in vigorous, even disruptive, debate. This balance has been critical. Our universities must earn people’s trust by balancing academic freedom with public accountability.
They must tell people how they use public money, get independent accreditation, and let their peers look at their work. Indian universities enrich national progress through research that informs policy, innovations that feed industry, and voices that challenge complacency. But this contribution flourishes only when autonomy and accountability grow together. To treat them as opposing forces is to misunderstand how universities succeed. In our country, where most higher education remains publicly funded, governments expect institutions to use resources wisely.
Oversight, however, should not mean micromanagement. The central concern is creating open, honest governance systems, acting with integrity, and showing precise, meaningful results. Indian higher education institutes already operate with academic councils, senates, syndicates, and boards, including independent academics, industry leaders, and alumni. These structures should ensure that decision-makers are accountable to the public and help protect intellectual freedom. So the critical point is not whether universities should be regulated, but how we can do it to preserve their autonomy and build public confidence.
When done right, this balance will equip universities to help shape our nation’s future. Since we became independent, regulators like the University Grants Commission have played a significant role in shaping the expansion of higher education across the country. Over the years, particularly after the launch of NEP 2020, the UGC has evolved from being more of a strict overseer to taking on a more supportive role. Its recent reforms are focused on giving universities more liberty to design their courses, teaching methods, and research goals, all while still maintaining coordination at the national level. Some may call for “total autonomy” for universities to set academic standards. But such calls overlook the risks of fragmentation.
Without some shared minimum standards, higher education systems can quickly become uneven, leading to sharp disparities in quality and credibility. Evidence shows that the post-Independence expansion of Indian higher education worked precisely because a central framework created common standards while allowing regional and institutional diversity. Science, humanities, and professional programs were developed within broad national guidelines but adapted them to local contexts. One should not misinterpret uniform standards as erasing pluralism.
They provide a guaranteed baseline to students and employers that a degree earned in Delhi carries the same credibility as one from Chennai or Guwahati. Beyond quality standards, institutions can and should differentiate themselves through local relevance, international partnerships, or disciplinary strengths. Globally, good universities are rarely dependent on a single funding stream. Government funding has played a significant role in many Western countries, but private donations, partnerships with industry, support from philanthropies and alumni contributions have been just as important. For Indian universities, diversifying funding sources is not simply about financial security but intellectual independence.
Handling resource fluctuations becomes manageable when universities rely on diverse funding sources. This plural support base allows universities to pursue long-term, curiosity-driven research even when market or state priorities shift. Every government naturally seeks alignment between national priorities and higher education institutions. But alignment is not synonymous with subordination. All over the world, universities take on important national responsibilities while still holding on to their independence.
A clear example of this was during the Covid-19 pandemic. During these difficult times, Indian universities stepped up constructively by opening their laboratories and playing a role in shaping national public health strategies. Universities should support national priorities but must stay true to their missions. Autonomy matters most with responsibility, openness, and a strong dedication to serving the public.
The future of Indian higher education will be judged less by whether institutional evolution happened and more by whether it happened in time. In a world where knowledge ecosystems are increasingly global, standing still is equivalent to falling behind. Countries that have successfully transformed their systems did so by embedding academic freedom within accountable, forward-looking institutions.
Those who view such an overhaul as a threat to institutional autonomy must consider the alternative: stagnation, uneven quality, and declining global relevance. The core mission of Indian higher education institutes should be to become both locally grounded and globally competitive; autonomous and accountable; and innovative and credible. If they manage this trade-off, a decade from now, the story will be about how our universities have strengthened their capacity to meet our nation’s ambitions and the demands of a highly competitive global stage.
Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, Former Chairman, UGC and Former Vice-Chancellor, JNU (Views are personal)
