By 2035, the National Education Policy 2020 aims to raise the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) for the 18–23 age group from 28.4% to 50%. Assuming that a single, centrally mandated blueprint will be sufficient would be a major strategic error in this vast national project. India’s future in higher education will be shaped by the many socioeconomic contexts of its States, not just Delhi.
The 50% GER target is not a mere incremental change. It is a social change that necessitates the admission of an extra 33 million youth to our universities and colleges. Therefore, policymakers must acknowledge that a uniform strategy will unavoidably fail to address the profound disparities that define our nation. Hence the policy movement forward has to be federated. Compared to a state like Tamil Nadu, which has nearly achieved the national GER target, Bihar, which is only beginning to climb, confronts essentially different obstacles.
This article seeks to examine the distinct situations of four paradigmatic states—Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar—which allows us to pinpoint the traits of a more intricate, effective, and sustainable national strategy.
The spectrum of development
Building foundational access
Diversity in higher education is not coincidental; rather, it is strongly related to economic and demographic realities. The Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) per capita, a gauge of economic health, is strongly tied to a state’s ability to fund and sustain a robust higher education system.
Establishing foundational access
The data presents a compelling narrative: there is a correlation between economic strength and educational attainment. Each State must tailor its strategy to its unique place on this development spectrum in order to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and instead adopt a tailored model of educational governance.
Four distinct pathways
Tamil Nadu’s frontier has shifted, and the State has nearly resolved its access issue. The moment has come to clearly switch from quantity to quality. Therefore, the next 10 years should be devoted to qualitative assets, including faculty development centers to modernize teaching techniques and research clusters co-funded by industry in areas like AI for Indian languages or renewable energy.
Maharashtra offers a paradox of bright islands of academic brilliance, particularly in Mumbai and Pune, amidst the sea of regional universities vying for reputation and financing. The State’s problem is dissemination, or building bridges to connect these islands of excellence with the mainland. Sharing knowledge under the direction of its best universities would be a good strategy. In order to convert the state’s strong economic position into more evenly dispersed academic excellence, a substantial R&D effort that leverages its economic predominance in manufacturing, biosciences, and finance is required.
Math is never as scary in higher education as it is in Uttar Pradesh. With a population of over 200 million, a mere 1% rise in GER brings in millions of new students. Thus, the largest challenge facing Uttar Pradesh is the sheer need for size.
To achieve its objectives, the State will need to make a large and continuous financial investment in a vast capacity-building operation. This demographic powerhouse views expanding access to higher education as more than just an academic objective; it is a fundamental social contract and the primary means of transforming its youthful population from a potential liability into a national advantage.
Finally, Bihar has the steepest journey. When a GER lingers in the mid-teens, giving access is the most fundamental challenge. The State must focus on three key pillars: creating a stable supply of qualified instructors, building new colleges, and creating a robust digital learning infrastructure to get over physical limitations.
In a State with a growing industrial base, a state-funded internship program is a vital instrument for providing students with necessary working experience and bridging the gap between their education and employment. The ultimate objective for Bihar is to create a whole ecosystem from the ground up and give its youth possibilities.
A novel framework for partnerships
To achieve this State-led vision, the role of the Union government must be fundamentally reconceived, shifting from that of a prescriptive controller to that of a strategic catalyst. Instead of dictating Bihar’s destiny, Delhi should empower it to shape it. This necessitates a comprehensive approach grounded in an asymmetric and cooperative federalist ideology.
First and foremost, the Union must be the Great Financial Equalizer. This indicates that States facing the most challenging ascents receive a disproportionate and deliberate allocation of resources. Companies like the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) should be recapitalized in order to offer low-cost, long-term loans for capital-intensive infrastructure projects with advantageous conditions for states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
Second, the Center must advocate for a paradigm shift in regulation. Similar to this, the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) has to set aside a sizeable corpus for establishing research capacities in states where the R&D ecosystem is still in its infancy, in addition to funding high-profile initiatives at reputable universities. This is not merely redistribution; it is a strategic investment in enhancing the potential of the nation’s citizens and minimizing regional inequality.
Our regulatory bodies have stifled innovation by spending much too much time policing inputs like land space, building size, and faculty-to-student ratios. Lean, outcome-driven, and enabling should be the hallmarks of the new regulatory culture.
While national bodies like the UGC focus on creating general academic standards and structures for quality assurance, states and institutions should be free to experiment with curriculum and pedagogy. In order to create a competitive environment that rewards performance, the goal should be to progress toward a system of graded autonomy where high-performing institutions are freed from bureaucratic constraints.
Beyond CSR: Industry as co-creator
It is similarly vital to fundamentally redefine the connection between academia and industry. The private sector must shift from its traditional role as a passive consumer of talent to an active co-creator and co-owner of the educational process. This collaboration needs to be built on three essential pillars.
The first pillar is co-designing dynamic curricula. The days of static, five-year syllabus modifications are over. Industry must be incorporated into academic architecture in a world where technology is evolving swiftly. Instead of depending exclusively on guest lecturers, this calls for the establishment of formal, empowered industry-academia boards for every vocational and professional stream. These entities would be tasked with the continuous upgrading of curricula to ensure congruence with current market demands and future technological trajectories, ensuring that what is taught in the classroom is usable in the workplace.
The second pillar is the creation of a symbiotic innovation ecosystem. Industry can no longer lament the lack of applied research in academic institutions if it does not actively contribute to its development. This means introducing practical business issues into academic laboratories and making a systemic commitment to co-funding research and development.
A positive feedback loop can be initiated with a robust set of incentives, including tax benefits for contracting out research and development to university institutions, accelerated patenting processes, and the establishment of collaborative research centers. While industry has access to cutting-edge, reasonably priced technology, universities obtain vital financing and their staff and students gain priceless experience on practical, commercially relevant projects.
Apprenticeship co-ownership is the third and most crucial pillar. The skills gap, which is often an experience gap, cannot be closed by classroom learning alone. Instead of making internships and apprenticeships a discretionary summer activity, we need to change the model so that they are mandatory, credit-bearing, and rigorously evaluated as part of higher education. A national effort, perhaps backed by legislation, is required to create millions of structured apprenticeship slots. The industry must see this as a direct investment in training cost reduction, workforce development, and having a talent pipeline ready for the workforce.
If we align these forces—letting States take the lead, giving them fair and catalytic federal funding, and incorporating industry as a vital partner—we can achieve the lofty objective of a 50% GER. This goal of a new India is achievable via the joint efforts of Chennai, Mumbai, Lucknow, and Patna, not just one decree. The greatest calculated investment our country can make in its own future is this.
But this isn’t the whole tale. This strategy may always raise important issues. Here are a few points that need nuanced responses:
Concerns about centralisation
The idea of “one nation, one standard” in higher education may be challenged by critics who fear that State-led autonomy will exacerbate fragmentation and result in differences in quality, resources, and administrative effectiveness between developed and less developed regions. While State-only solutions run the danger of weakening these advantages, central frameworks, when well constructed, can promote national mobility, quality assurance, and credential portability.
Danger of inequality growing
India’s educational system could become even more unequal if affluent states outperform poorer ones due to an over-reliance on asymmetric funding and unequal local administration. Critics point out that federated governance may compromise national equity aims (such as gender, caste, and rural-urban parity), which call for cogent, centrally led solutions.
Realistic industry-academia partnerships
Outside of large hubs, industry-academia collaboration is much weaker; most regional institutions are not close to vibrant companies or have the ability for important research partnerships, which makes scaling change challenging. Deep, long-term collaboration is hampered by operational and cultural differences (such as misaligned priorities, inadequate intellectual property regimes, and resource imbalances), particularly in States with poor industrial bases.
Risks to quality in the face of quantitative growth
Due to overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of qualified faculty, India’s hasty expansion of GER has already left many graduates ill-prepared for work or further study. The growth runs the risk of weakening standards and eroding long-term socioeconomic gains in the absence of robust faculty development and comprehensive quality assurance.
Regulatory and financial viability
The story overestimates the government’s capacity and willingness to drastically reallocate funds; recent budgets have come under fire for reducing funding for higher education and ignoring basic necessities. Experts contend that in addition to financial support, long-term change necessitates administrative capability and governance reforms, both of which are frequently absent from India’s state education departments.
In summary, if we examine India’s higher education prospects through the lens of four archetypal states—Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar— a clear message that come out is a call for a strategic, cooperative federalism where the Union government acts as a catalyst and financial equalizer, supporting states according to their unique challenges. While recognizing risks like inequality and regulatory challenges, there’s indeed a need for a tailored, state-specific strategies to ensure equitable, sustainable growth in India’s higher education sector.