Skip to main content
Log in

Goals and governance of higher education in India

Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the evolution of the Indian State’s role in governance, and the implications this has for goal setting. We find that the Indian government’s activist role in governance marked a change from the colonial period. This, we suggest, was not due to changes in the relative influence of different stakeholder groups. It was instead due to new national developmental goals, particularly industrialization. Fairly quickly after independence, we find that higher education governance came to be exercised in different ways between the center and the states. Control over the system’s governance was to later become an arena of contest between the national (central) government and the provinces (states), leading to disagreements on strategies, such as on funding and regulation. In later phases, particularly in the third phase that began in 1984 and continues to the present, the disagreements intensified because educational priorities started changing due to the changes in the relative influence of stakeholder groups and new forces such as globalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When we use the word State with a capital letter, it refers to the political system as a whole, meaning center and local state (provincial) governments.

  2. Since the definitions of terms might differ, we clarify with the following example of affirmative action governance: the vision statement might include education for all, the mission statement might specify that the focus would be on the lowest 20 % income students, the goal might state that this group should finish high school, the objective might be to set up publicly-owned schools that will provide such education within a certain time-line, and the strategy might specify locations, resources and ownership (such as enabling private provision).

  3. Academics largely agree that the Nehru and Indira Gandhi periods were marked by distinct styles of governance. The later period is less commonly agreed on. Kohli (2010), Nagaraj (2010) and Chibber (2010) also specify three phases that roughly coincides with ours. Their logic is based on the phases of economic development, which moved from SOE-led manufacturing (Nehru), emphasis on equitable growth, reduced importance for industrialization and a correspondingly greater emphasis on providing social services (Mrs. Gandhi) and economic reform favoring the private sector (Rajiv Gandhi onwards). Others, such as Ahluwalia and Little (2012) and Joshi and Little (1996) argue that fiscal stabilization, which began from 1991, enabled a new phase of reforms and would separate the pre-1991 and post-1991 periods.

  4. http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/g/W/16/0W160301.htm, accessed December 8, 2010. The presidency in colonial times referred to an administrative subdivision.

  5. Charles Wood, who authored the government’s report on establishing the presidency universities noted that education was “to be mainly supported by those who are anxious for it”. Wood added: “if they (Indians) choose to educate themselves, well and good, but I am against providing our own future detractors, opponents and grumblers”. Wood noted that “the form, government and functions of the University of London are best adapted to the wants of India”. (Wood’s Despatch to Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General in India: http://www.caluniv.ac.in/About%20the%20university/Some%20Defining%20Events.htm, accessed April 11, 2012). Schenkman (1954) notes that universities were not to be themselves “places of education” but were to test “the value of the education given elsewhere.” (p. 24). For information on how the University of London was organized as a federal university, see: http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html, accessed April 11, 2012.

  6. INSA (2001, Ch. 6, p. 85).

  7. In 1882, a state education commission reemphasized the federal role calling for the withdrawal of the state from the management and direct financial support of higher education in favor of self-financed private colleges. In 1886, another government report noted that “low grade technical and industrial schools were opened and were run variously by education departments, district boards and privately.” (INSA 2001, Ch. 6, p. 86 op cit). In response, a University Commission of 1902 recommended “a much more strict and systematic supervision of the colleges by the university; and the imposition of more exacting conditions of affiliation; a much closer attention to the conditions under which students live and work; the assumption of teaching functions by the university within defined limits; substantial changes in curricula and in the methods of examination.” This change in direction was probably influenced by trends towards greater university control in Britain at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_London, accessed December 13, 2010). The Universities Act of 1904 sought to implement these recommendations. The Act defined the powers of universities thus: “The University shall be… deemed to have been incorporated for the purpose (among others) of making provision for the instruction of students, with power to appoint University professors and lecturers, to hold and manage educational endowments, to erect, equip and maintain University libraries, laboratories and museums, to make regulations relating to the residence and conduct of students, and to do all acts, consistent with this Act, which lead to the promotion of study and research”. http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/n/2D/3P/2D3P0501.htm, accessed December 10, 2010. Despite this, private colleges proliferated—this was attributed to the reluctance of the colonial state to spend resources. Likewise, unitary private institutions funded by citizens and recognized by acts of Parliament or other vesting powers were established. These included the Indian Institute of Science, in 1910, Banaras Hindu University, in 1915, and Aligarh Muslim University, in 1920. (INSA, op.cit., p. 86.) The number of technical institutions grew to 21 by 1939. Enrollment is recorded as 126,000 by 1936–1937.

  8. CABE was, however, not operationalized till 1935. Source: Government of India (2005).

  9. INSA (2001, p. 87).

  10. In the event of conflicts between state and central law, for instance, the latter always prevails. (Hardgrave and Kochanek 1986, p. 146).

  11. Despite these institutions, the growth in professional enrollment was low for many decades. Compared with 1947, when 211,894 students were enrolled in technical institutions, the intake had risen by just 58 % by 2000 (INSA 2001, p. 89).

  12. The UGC was empowered to: (1) promote and coordinate university education; (2) determine and maintain standards of teaching, examination and research. This included defining teachers’ qualifications, standards of instruction and fee scales; (3) financially aid the universities, both those created by the federal government and others (the latter from 1972); (4) advise universities on implementing actions for maintaining standards; (5) inspect universities for financial and educational standards; (6) recognize and de-list colleges within a university system for not meeting financial standards. This would be done upon the recommendation of the university. Prior to the formation of UGC, universities were responsible for recognizing and de-listing colleges. (Government of India, Education Commissions and Committees in Retrospect). In practice, the universities continued to control the recognition of constituent colleges since they were not obliged to obtain UGC permission.

  13. http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/g/W/16/0W160501.htm, accessed December 10, 2010.

  14. UGC University Governance Committee, 1969. http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/n/2D3P0501.htm, accessed April 11, 2012. See also Kumar (1975), pp 215 ff. The report recommended that the three-tier governance system of the university, consisting of Senate, Executive Council and Academic Council be reformed, with the Senate (which included external and internal stakeholders) playing a largely consultative role compared with its then overriding authority over the actions of the internally constituted Executive and Academic Councils. The Executive Council was recommended to be the normal body for governance, whose actions would always require the prior recommendation of the Academic Council.

  15. The goals are put forth in various policy documents. For example, the Central Advisory Board of Education, the apex policy making body of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, stated its goal as “achieving equity, access and balanced development of higher education.” (CABE Minutes, June 19, 2010, www.education.nic.in, accessed December 25, 2010). For a review of the objectives and challenges, see Government of India (2008).

  16. Tilak (2001) notes that the corresponding figure was 14 % in 2001.

  17. In 1996, average tuition at unaided private institutions was Rs. 3,331 compared with Rs. 1,198 for the system as a whole (for general education). (Source: UGC, 2008, p. 284).

  18. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Unni Krishnan case of 1993 is available at: http://www.articlesbase.com/national-state-local-articles/critical-analysis-of-the-case-tmapai-foundation-v-state-of-karnataka-air-2003-sc-355-through-the-view-of-minority-of-educational-rights-2738451.html, downloaded April 12, 2012.

  19. Quoted in Agarwal (2006, p. 12).

  20. The reports favoring autonomy include the UGC reports of 1969 on University Governance, of 1990 on Alternate Models of Management, the Ministry’s National Policy of Education, 1986, a report in 1986 on Alternate Models for the Management of Universities, and the CABE report of 2005.

  21. UGC’s guidelines for autonomy are available at: http://www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/autonomous_13.html, and http://www.education.nic.in/higedu.asp, accessed March 18, 2012.

  22. See, for example, the 2010 rankings of Karnataka engineering colleges at: http://www.educationindiaworld.com/2010/05/28/top-ranking-engineering-colleges-in-karnataka-best-engineering-colleges-in-karnataka/, accessed December 27, 2010.

  23. According to Government of India (2008), the number of unfilled faculty positions at unaided private colleges, as of 2008 was 52 % at the entry (Lecturer) level, and for Readers (the next level up), it was 28 %. This compares with 41 and 18 % respectively for all colleges. (p. 17).

  24. See, for example: http://thestatesman.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327599&catid=36&show=archive&year=2010&month=5&day=11&Itemid=66, accessed April 9, 2012.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2003). Disease and development in historical perspective. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(2/3), 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, P. (2006). Higher education in India: The need for change. Delhi: ICRIER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, I., & Little, I. (2012). India’s economic reforms and development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • AICTE. (2011). Approval process handbook. Delhi: AICTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anandakrishnan, M. (2004). Higher education in regional development: Some key pointers. Indo-UK Collaboration on Higher Education – Policy Forum Workshop. 12–13 February.

  • Assocham. (2010). Envisaging the future of higher education in India. Working Paper. New Delhi: Assocham.

  • Board of Education. (2010). Minutes of the board, June 19. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Calcutta University. (undated). Some defining events in the biography of the university. Available at: http://www.caluniv.ac.in/About%20the%20university/Some%20Defining%20Events.htm.

  • Chaudhary, L., Musacchio, A., Nafziger, S., & Yan, S. (2012). Big brics, weak foundations: The beginings of public elementary education in Brazil, Russia, India and China. Washington: NBER. WP #17852.

  • Chibber, V. (2010). Organized interests, development strategies and social policies. In UNRISD flagship report on poverty: Project of poverty reduction and policy regimes, India (pp. 163–181). New York: United Nations.

  • Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in a cross national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. New York: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R. (1998). ‘New Managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in Universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalization, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47, 361–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, T., & Woessman, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32, 433–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallego, F. (2010). Historical origins of schooling: The role of democracy and political decentralization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 228–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of India (GOI). (1986, 1992). Ministry of human resources development. National policy on education. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (1990). University grants commission. Report of the committee on alternate models of management. New Delhi: University Grants Commission. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (1992). Ministry of human resources development, central advisory board of education. Report of the CABE committee on the Gnanam committee report. Available at: http://www.education.nic.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (2005). Ministry of human resources development, central advisory board of education. Report of the CABE committee on the autonomy of higher education institutions. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (2006). National knowledge commission. Report of the working group on undergraduate education. New Delhi: National Knowledge Commission. Available at www.knowledgecommission.gov.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (2008). University grants commission. Higher education in India: issues related to expansion, inclusiveness, quality and finance. New Delhi: University Grants Commission.

  • Government of India (GOI). (2010). Ministry of human resources development. Report to the people on education. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Government of India (GOI). (undated). Ministry of human resources development. Education commissions and committees in retrospect. Available at: www.education.nic.in.

  • Hardgrave, R. L., Jr, & Kochanek, S. A. (1986). India—government and politics in a developing nation (4th ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • INSA. (2001). Pursuit and promotion of science: The Indian experience. New Delhi: INSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, U. C., & Nair, J. (2000). Encyclopedia of Indian government and politics, vol. 7, centre-state relations. Jaipur: Pointer Publishers.

  • Joshi, V., & Little, I. (1996). India’s economic reforms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, D. (2010). Indian higher education. In C. Clotfelter (Ed.), American Universities in a global market. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. (1997). Can democracies accommodate ethnic nationalism? Rise and decline of self-determination movements in India. The Journal of Asian Studies, 56(2), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. (2010). State and redistributive development in India. In UNRISD flagship report on poverty: Project of poverty reduction and policy regimes, India (pp. 182–206). New York: United Nations.

  • Kumar, V. (1975). Committees and commissions in India, 1947–1973. New Delhi: D.K. Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindert, P. (2004). Growing public: Social spending and economic growth since the eighteenth century. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & Ordorika, I. (2010). El central volume de la fuerza. In D. Rhoten & C. Calhoun (Eds.), The transformation of the “public” research universities: Shaping an international and interdisciplinary research agenda for the social sciences. New York: Social Science Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagaraj, R. (2010). Development strategies and poverty reduction. In UNRISD flagship report on poverty: Project of poverty reduction and policy regimes, India (pp. 22–54). New York: United Nations.

  • Naik, J. (1963). The role of the Government of India in education. Delhi: Union Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, J. (1974). Policy and performance in Indian education. Delhi: Dr. K.G.Saiyidain Memorial Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1993). Political regimes and economic growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., Alberto, A., & Lynn, V. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education, 52(2), 215–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenkman, A. (1954). Higher education in India. Far Eastern Survey, 23(2), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, S. (2010). Higher education reforms in India. New Haven: Yale University (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. (2001). Higher education and development in Kerala. Working Paper No. 5. Padivattam: Center for Socio-economic and Environmental Studies.

  • Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of London. (undated). A brief history. Available at: www.london.ac.uk/history.html.

  • Wood, C. (1854). Wood’s despatch to Lord Dalhousie. Available at: http://www.caluniv.ac.in/Abouttheuniversity/SomeDefiningEvents.htm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Carnoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carnoy, M., Dossani, R. Goals and governance of higher education in India. High Educ 65, 595–612 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9565-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9565-9

Keywords

Navigation