India's higher education sector has been facing persistent crises and growing concerns, which have become even more complex over time.

Following the introduction of the National Education Policy 2020, the central government has been implementing continuous reforms in the education system, raising suspicions about hidden agendas. The University Grants Commission (UGC) serves as the apex body overseeing universities in the country.

The UGC Draft Regulations 2025, which outline minimum qualifications for faculty appointments and promotions, as well as measures to maintain academic standards, were initially open for public feedback until February 6.

However, following strong opposition, the deadline was extended to February 28. The draft regulations include key proposals such as removing the mandatory requirement for the National Eligibility Test (NET) for faculty appointments, considering research and academic contributions in appointments and promotions, ensuring assessments based on the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score, allowing professionals from various fields (not necessarily academic) to be appointed as vice-chancellors, and prioritizing regional languages for academic growth and student inclusion. While the draft claims to enhance the quality of higher education, the underlying goal appears to be consolidating control over state-governed institutions.

Governors, appointed by the central government, often serve as political appointees with strong party affiliations. These governors also act as chancellors of state universities, with the power to appoint vice-chancellors.

According to the 2018 regulations, a search and selection committee comprising three to five members prepares a shortlist for vice-chancellor appointments, from which the governor, as chancellor, makes the final selection. Since state governments have a majority representation in this committee, their influence remains significant.

However, the 2025 draft regulations propose a new three-member committee for vice-chancellor appointments, with the governor appointing the chairperson, the UGC chairman selecting one member, and the university management or government appointing the third member.

Unlike previous criteria that emphasized academic excellence and experience, the new regulations allow individuals from industries, businesses, or allied sectors with ten years of work experience to be appointed as vice-chancellors. This shift has sparked strong opposition, as it diminishes the role of academic expertise in university leadership.

The draft regulations also propose changes in faculty recruitment, allowing candidates to become teachers based on national-level qualifying exams, irrespective of their degrees or PhDs. Assistant, associate, and full professorships can be attained with a PhD in the subject, even if the candidate’s undergraduate and postgraduate degrees are in a different field.

If four-year undergraduate degree holders are permitted to pursue direct research degrees and become college teachers, postgraduate degrees may lose relevance. Additionally, making proficiency in regional languages a requirement for faculty appointments may sideline English language proficiency.

Under the current system, vice-chancellors have no role in the recruitment of principals and faculty in government-aided colleges, as these appointments are handled independently. However, the draft regulations grant vice-chancellors significant influence in these decisions, including appointing three subject experts in faculty selection committees.

This change could impact government and Public Service Commission (PSC)-based recruitments, further centralizing decision-making. With the governor (appointed by the central government) acting as the chancellor, the chancellor appointing the vice-chancellor, and the vice-chancellor selecting faculty recruitment committees, state governments and university managements may be reduced to mere rubber stamps.

The draft regulations reflect a broader trend of centralizing power under the guise of nationalism, echoing policies like “One Nation, One Law” and “One Nation, One Election.” By treating India’s diverse higher education institutions as a single entity under the central government’s control, the proposed changes threaten the federal structure of governance. The UGC has also warned that state universities refusing to implement these regulations risk losing existing grants, posing a significant financial challenge.

Out of 1,074 universities in India, only 56 are centrally administered. If, in the future, decades-old prestigious state universities are brought under central control, it would drastically alter the higher education landscape. When the UGC dictates curricula, faculty appointment criteria, examination structures, evaluation methods, degree frameworks, admission standards, and research topics, state governments may be left powerless.

One of the most affected groups would be minority institutions, particularly Christian-run educational establishments that have long been recognized for their excellence and selfless service. The constitutional rights of minorities in education are at risk, as the draft regulations subtly erode their autonomy.

By shifting faculty and staff appointments under the control of vice-chancellors and chancellors (who are, in turn, influenced by the central government), minority managements may be reduced to mere caretakers of their institutions. The Direct Payment Agreement of 1972 currently governs faculty and principal appointments in Kerala’s minority-run colleges. If the new regulations override this agreement, minority institutions will face serious challenges.

The draft regulations have sparked widespread opposition. The governments of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Telangana have passed resolutions against them, citing violations of federal principles. In Bihar, the BJP’s ally JD(U) has openly criticized the draft regulations, while West Bengal is considering legal action in the Supreme Court.

It is crucial to recognize that these political and administrative power struggles are ultimately playing with the future of the younger generation. While promoting national identity and unity is important, enforcing centralized policies through restrictive regulations risks undermining the country’s diverse educational landscape.

When those responsible for guiding future generations create conditions that push them to seek opportunities elsewhere, India risks losing its intellectual and skilled workforce.

Sacrificing the education sector for political and ideological gains would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations.