The central challenge facing Indian higher education today is this: Can a country as diverse as India create excellence by combining national standards with institutional freedom?

The Challenge: Scale and Governance 

India has one of the world's largest higher education systems, both in terms of the number of institutions and student enrolment. Over the past few decades, the country has witnessed significant expansion of universities, colleges and specialised institutions. While this expansion has improved access to higher education, concerns continue to remain regarding quality, research output, employability, faculty development and institutional autonomy.

The challenge is compounded by India's extraordinary diversity. The country has multiple languages, distinct regional histories, varying levels of economic development and institutions with widely differing capabilities. A highly centralised approach to higher education administration may therefore not be adequate to address such diversity.

The question, therefore, is not whether higher education should be centralised or decentralised, but rather:

What level of governance?

This leads to the principle of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity: A Framework for Higher Education Governance

Subsidiarity means that decisions should be taken at the lowest level capable of making them effectively, while higher levels of authority should intervene only when issues require broader coordination, common standards or national oversight.

Applied to higher education, this implies that the Centre should focus on defining national objectives, maintaining quality standards, establishing accreditation frameworks and ensuring equitable access, while states and institutions should enjoy greater freedom in academic, administrative and operational matters.

Such an approach recognises that India requires both national coherence and local flexibility.

Why Subsidiarity is Relevant to Indian Higher Education

India's linguistic and cultural diversity makes a uniform approach difficult. Many regional languages possess rich literary and intellectual traditions, but several are still developing the technical vocabulary required for advanced education in fields such as engineering, medicine, science and technology.

Institutional requirements also vary significantly. IITs and research-intensive universities have very different needs from state universities. Urban institutions face challenges different from rural colleges. Regional economies require different skills and industry linkages.

A single centrally designed model cannot effectively address such varied realities.

Areas Where Subsidiarity Can Improve 

Institutional Autonomy

Universities should have greater academic freedom to design courses, introduce new disciplines and develop industry partnerships. However, autonomy should operate within a national framework defining minimum standards and expected learning outcomes.

The objective should not be uniformity of curriculum, but consistency in quality.

Administrative Autonomy

Institutions should have greater authority over faculty recruitment, resource allocation and infrastructure development. Decisions taken closer to the institution are likely to be more responsive to local requirements.

However, autonomy must be accompanied by transparency and accountability.

Financial Autonomy

Financial flexibility is essential for maintaining quality. Institutions should have greater freedom to generate and utilise resources, develop partnerships and invest according to their priorities.

This must be supported by outcome-based evaluation to ensure that autonomy does not result in declining standards.

State-level Flexibility

Since education is a Concurrent List subject, states should have greater flexibility in implementing higher education policies according to local conditions.

The Centre's role should be to ensure minimum national standards, encourage best practices and prevent excessive disparities.

Risks and Safeguards

Subsidiarity does not mean absence of regulation. One of India's major challenges is unequal institutional capacity.

Some states have developed strong higher education ecosystems with better infrastructure, faculty availability and industry linkages, while others continue to face significant challenges. Excessive decentralisation without safeguards could widen existing disparities.

The role of the Centre is therefore essential—not as a controller of every academic decision, but as a guarantor of quality.

Strong accreditation mechanisms, transparent evaluation systems, national qualification frameworks and credible quality assurance institutions are necessary to ensure that autonomy produces excellence rather than fragmentation.

Kothari Commission: Vision and Implementation

The Kothari Commission (1964–66) remains one of the most comprehensive reviews of India's education system after Independence.

Its vision extended beyond educational expansion. It viewed education as an instrument of:

• National development
• Social transformation
• Scientific progress
• Equality of opportunity

The Commission recognised that India's diversity required both national direction and institutional flexibility. Many of its recommendations remain relevant to the principle of subsidiarity, particularly its emphasis on quality improvement, autonomy and effective educational governance.

Its major recommendations for higher education included:

• Expansion of universities and colleges
• Improvement in quality
• Strengthening science and research
• Greater institutional autonomy
• Better teacher training
• Increased public expenditure on education, with a target of 6% of GDP

Implementation

Several recommendations were successfully implemented:

• Expansion of higher education institutions
• Growth of science and technical education
• Development of IITs and research institutions
• Creation of national education frameworks

However, significant challenges remain:

• The 6% GDP expenditure target has not been consistently achieved. India currently spends approximately 2.5% of GDP on education, much below the recommended level, and an expenditure that has shown steady decline in the last decade.
• Quality differences between institutions remain substantial.
• Research culture in many universities remains weak.
• Faculty quality and availability continue to be concerns.

The Kothari Commission provided a comprehensive vision, but implementation was constrained by administrative, financial and political realities.

The New Approach to Higher Education

NEP 2020 can be viewed as an attempt to address several challenges identified decades earlier by introducing greater flexibility, autonomy and multidisciplinary learning.

Key Objectives

Multidisciplinary Education

NEP 2020 seeks to move away from rigid separation between arts, science, commerce and professional education.

It promotes flexible learning pathways through:

• Multiple entry and exit options
• Academic Bank of Credits
• Recognition of lifelong learning

Lifelong learning recognises that education is not limited to formal years of study. Skills acquired through employment, professional courses, online learning, certifications and practical experience can also receive formal recognition.

Institutional Restructuring

The policy aims to transform the existing system of thousands of affiliated colleges into:

• Multidisciplinary universities
• Autonomous colleges
• Research-oriented institutions

It also emphasises:

• Strengthening university research
• Industry collaboration
• National Research Foundation

Skill Orientation

NEP 2020 places greater emphasis on vocational integration, industry collaboration and employability.

Implementation Challenges 

Despite its ambitious vision, implementation remains the critical challenge.

1. Governance Challenge

Can a national policy be implemented effectively across states with different capacities and priorities?

2. Faculty Challenge

Reform requires trained and motivated teachers, not merely new institutional structures.

3. Autonomy versus Accountability

Institutions require freedom to innovate, but autonomy must be accompanied by measurable outcomes.

4. Financial Challenge

Transformation requires sustained investment in infrastructure, research and faculty development.

5. Quality versus Expansion

Increasing enrolment without improving quality risks diluting the value of higher education.

Decentralised but Accountable 

India does not need less regulation; it needs better regulation. The government should define standards and outcomes rather than control every academic decision. Institutions should have the freedom to innovate while remaining accountable through transparent evaluation.

The future of Indian higher education may depend not on greater central control, but on creating autonomous institutions operating within a strong framework of accountability.

The principle of subsidiarity provides the framework for achieving this balance: decisions should be made as close as possible to those affected by them, while national objectives and standards remain protected.

The Kothari Commission provided the vision; NEP 2020 provides the roadmap. The remaining challenge is execution.

(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views are personal. He can be reached at  kl.viswanathan@gmail.com )