Higher education and the three-language question

India's higher education system is a study in scale without commensurate quality. It enrols crores of students, yet the Gross Enrolment Ratio is 28.4 percent against the NEP 2020 target of 50 percent by 2035; 54 Indian universities figure in the QS World Rankings 2026 (up from 11 in 2015), yet only 39 percent of universities are NAAC accredited; and the country spends 0.64 percent of GDP on R and D while its students send billions of dollars abroad for the education they cannot get at home. Running through all of this is the oldest education debate in the republic: which languages India's children should learn in. This article covers higher education access, quality, research and regulation, and the three-language formula debate, for GS-II and prelims.

A note on evidence: the core ratios (GER, accreditation, R and D spending) are cross-verified across compilations. Reform announcements (foreign campuses, ONOS) are reported with their dates; treat counts as moving.

Access: the GER gap and its geography

CUET is the Common University Entrance Test, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) since 2022 as the single-window entrance for undergraduate admission to central universities. It matters for equity in both directions: it levels the field between state boards with wildly different marking standards, but it also privileges students who can afford entrance coaching, recreating inside higher education the access divide the article maps. It is therefore the most consequential recent instrument shaping who gets into a university.

The Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education is 28.4 percent (AISHE 2021-22): barely more than one in four of the eligible age group is enrolled, against NEP 2020's ambition of 50 percent by 2035. The national figure hides a map of inequality. University density (institutions per lakh eligible students) is 10.3 in Sikkim and 0.2 in Bihar; southern states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana) lead in GER while Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha lag in both density and quality. Girls' GER at the higher-secondary level reached 60.9 percent, a bright spot feeding the tertiary pipeline. For prelims, remember the pair: GER measures the share of the eligible population enrolled, and NEP 2020's two numeric targets are 100 percent school GER by 2030 and 50 percent higher-education GER by 2035.

Funding is the quieter access barrier. University-level spending is only 0.62 percent of GDP, and per-capita higher-education spending is 35 times lower than the USA. PM-USHA (Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan) targets state-university infrastructure, the Bharatiya Bhasha Pustak Scheme funds regional-language textbooks, and NDEAR builds digital education architecture: all three attack the cost and language barriers that keep first-generation students out. But as with school education, the headline budget gap is the story: actual public education spending is about 3.1 percent of GDP against the NEP promise of 6 percent.

Quality: accreditation, research and the rankings paradox

The Institutes of Eminence scheme grants graded autonomy and, for public institutions, extra funding to 20 selected universities to break into global rankings. It matters as the quality-side bet of higher-education policy: instead of spreading resources thinly, concentrate them where excellence is plausible, a logic the accreditation debate below keeps returning to.

Quality assurance is thin. Only about 39 percent of universities are NAAC accredited, and accreditation is expensive and time-consuming, so many institutions operate without quality benchmarks; even accredited institutions face quality concerns. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), running since 2015, provides a competing public ranking. The deeper problem is research: R and D expenditure is 0.64 to 0.7 percent of GDP (against 4.8 percent in South Korea and 3.5 percent in the USA), producing a PhD shortage, faculty gaps and an innovation ecosystem too weak to retain researchers. The QS World Rankings 2026 count of 54 Indian universities, up from 11 in 2015, is real progress, but rankings measure peaks while the system's base stays weak.

NEP 2020's research architecture responds directly: the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) to boost R and D spending toward 2 percent of GDP; One Nation One Subscription (ONOS), approved by the Union Cabinet in November 2024 and rolled out in January 2025, a centrally funded Rs 6,000-crore scheme giving some 6,300 institutions and 1.8 crore students, faculty and researchers access to about 13,400 international journals from 30 global publishers, coordinated by INFLIBNET under the UGC and free at the point of use; the Prime Minister's Research Fellowship (PMRF) for doctoral students; and the PAIR programme linking top institutions with emerging ones in a hub-and-spoke model. ONOS is the structural fix for the knowledge divide between rich and poor institutions; its test will be usage, not subscriptions.

Regulation and autonomy: HECI and the IIM Act debate

NEP 2020 proposes the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) as a single regulator, replacing the UGC, AICTE and NCTE patchwork. The efficiency case is obvious; the centralisation concern is the standard critique (sources flag it explicitly), alongside fears that a single national regulator weakens state and institutional flexibility. Accreditation reform is the companion demand: mandatory NAAC and NBA coverage across all institutions, with funding linked to outcomes.

The autonomy question has a live precedent. Arguments for greater autonomy for premier institutes: academic excellence needs freedom from bureaucratic control; merit can be defined beyond JEE and CAT scores; course innovation suits global needs; faculty hiring should follow academic merit; and global competitiveness demands it. The IIM Act, 2017 gave IIMs greater autonomy and is being studied as the model for IITs. Arguments for state oversight: public funding requires accountability; equity in admissions needs reservation; affordability matters for poor and rural students; and curriculum in critical subjects is a public interest. The balanced approach sources converge on: functional autonomy in curriculum, faculty hiring and partnerships, with government oversight on equity, affordability and ethics, performance-based grants instead of micromanagement, and self-regulation through accreditation.

Internationalisation: campuses in, campuses out

The UGC (Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India) Regulations, 2023 allow foreign universities ranked in the top 500 globally (overall or subject-wise) to set up Indian campuses: UGC in-principle approval required, campuses within two years, faculty autonomy on qualifications and salaries, degrees under the foreign university's name and seal, and permitted credit transfers. The University of Southampton (UK) became the first global university to open a campus, and the GIFT City (Gujarat International Finance Tec-City) academic zone is designed as a cluster. Benefits claimed: affordable quality education at home, talent retention and reduced forex outflow, research collaboration, higher academic standards through competition, and industry-aligned programmes. Risks: high tuition excluding marginalised sections, limited short-term reach, cultural and pedagogical mismatch, regulatory uncertainty on taxation and autonomy, and commercialisation overtaking public interest.

The reverse flow matters too: IITs, IIMs and leading private universities are expanding to the UAE, Tanzania and Malaysia, offering Indian curriculum and degrees at affordable cost. The outflow that both directions address is large: foreign-exchange spending on students' education abroad rose to around USD 6.3 billion in 2024 from USD 2.46 billion in 2015 (RBI data), while 72,218 foreign students studied in India in 2024-25. Brain-drain causes are familiar (better research infrastructure abroad, salaries, quality of life, weak domestic innovation ecosystems, bureaucratic hurdles), and the retention toolkit runs from ANRF and ONOS to better salaries, research infrastructure and diaspora networks.

The three-language formula: the debate

The three-language formula was first adopted in NEP 1968 on the Kothari Commission (1964-65) recommendations, and NEP 2020 has revived the debate. The constitutional base: Article 350A (instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage), Article 351 (the state's duty to develop Hindi), and the Eighth Schedule listing 22 official languages. The evolution: NEP 1968 meant Hindi, English and a regional language; the 1992 Programme of Action pushed the mother tongue at the pre-school level; the RTE Act 2009 said the mother tongue "as far as possible"; NEP 2020 says home or mother tongue till Class 5 (preferably Class 8), with at least two of the three languages Indian. Note carefully: NEP 2020 does not mandate Hindi; it mandates multilingualism with choice.

Arguments for: it fulfils the constitutional mandate; multilingualism improves cognitive abilities (UNESCO); cultural significance and national unity; and mother-tongue-based learning demonstrably improves outcomes, especially for first-generation learners. Arguments against: the risk of perceived Hindi imposition, which has historically triggered son-of-the-soil protests, most famously in Tamil Nadu, which follows a two-language formula and has opposed the three-language push; the choice-versus-imposition question; overburdening primary students; implementation gaps (qualified teachers, materials in every language); and the argument that AI translation reduces the necessity in the digital age. The debate is not settled policy but a live federal negotiation: cooperative federalism in action, and the textbook example of how education policy collides with linguistic identity.

Ragging: the campus violence the law could not end

Ragging is the practice of senior students harassing, humiliating or assaulting freshers in colleges and hostels. Despite being a criminal offence for well over a decade, it continues to cause student suicides, with cases reported from premier institutions including IITs and AIIMS, and lifelong trauma for survivors. In 2024 the Kerala High Court directed the state to create a working group to draft rules for anti-ragging law enforcement, a sign that the legal framework still needs operational teeth.

The law is detailed; the enforcement is not. The UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging, 2009 made ragging a criminal offence in every university and college. They mandate joint sensitisation of freshers and seniors at admission, place the burden of proof on the perpetrator rather than the victim, and require affidavits from students and parents, anti-ragging cells, helplines, and prominently displayed nodal-officer contacts. The Raghavan Committee (2007) had earlier recommended that NAAC accreditation factor in ragging incidents and that mentoring cells pair seniors with freshers; the Supreme Court's 2009 directives made institutional vigilance mandatory.

Why it persists:

• Cultural acceptance: ragging is still treated as a senior's rite of passage.
• Fear of retaliation keeps victims silent, and in practice the burden of proof still falls on them.
• Institutions that prioritise reputation over student safety under-report incidents.
• Hostel and off-campus incidents escape direct supervision.
• Cyber ragging, harassment through social media and messaging platforms, extends the abuse beyond physical campuses.

Examination integrity: when the gateway leaks

Public examinations are the gateway to higher education, government jobs and social mobility for crores of Indians, so their integrity is a social-justice question, not just an administrative one. The National Testing Agency (NTA), set up in 2017 under the Ministry of Education, conducts the largest of them: NEET (UG), JEE Main, CUET (UG and PG), and UGC NET.

The leak record:

• The NEET UG 2024 paper-leak scandal affected over 24 lakh candidates, on reported counts.
• UGC NET 2024 was cancelled over integrity concerns.
• Around 75 examinations were leaked, cancelled or postponed between 2019 and 2024 across central and state levels, on reported tallies.
• The earlier Vyapam scam in Madhya Pradesh showed how deep-rooted the malpractice networks run.

The failures are systemic. Centralisation without contextual sensitivity puts single national exams over diverse regional contexts; political interference reaches appointments to examination bodies; frequent changes in pattern and eligibility create policy instability; and corruption runs from paper leaks to result manipulation. Cultural drivers add fuel: the normalisation of cheating as a way to overcome disadvantage, high-stakes pressure with parental involvement, and mass-cheating episodes such as the Bihar board cases. Technology cuts both ways: Bluetooth devices and smartwatches enable advanced cheating, while weak cybersecurity for question papers and outdated offline pen-and-paper modes leave the system exposed.

The response stack:

• The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is India's first national law on exam malpractice, enacted in February 2024 and effective from 21 June 2024. It covers examinations conducted by UPSC, SSC, Railways, NTA and other central bodies, defines unfair means as unauthorised access to or leakage of question papers or answer keys and tampering with computer systems, and leaves state-level exams to state laws.
• Reform proposals now standard in the debate: encrypted digital lockers for question papers, real-time monitoring of centres, biometric verification and AI-based proctoring, public disclosure and audit of exam processes, adaptive testing models, and project-based assessments for admissions.

The integrity of public examinations is the integrity of the social contract that promises merit will be rewarded; every leak is a betrayal of the honest student who prepared without shortcuts.

Are degrees losing value? The credential-inflation debate

A degree once offered a relatively clear route to secure employment, social status and higher earnings. The debate today is not about higher education itself but about the declining value of a degree alone, as its worth increasingly depends on the institution, the discipline, practical skills and labour-market demand.

The case that degrees are losing value:

• Credential inflation: India had nearly 4.5 crore higher-education students and 1.1 crore pass-outs in 2023-24 (AISHE); as degrees become common, merely holding one no longer differentiates a candidate.
• The employability gap: the India Skills Report 2024 found only 51.25 percent of assessed youth employable, with many graduates lacking communication, digital, analytical and workplace skills.
• Underemployment: nearly two-fifths of technically qualified youth worked in 2022 in occupations for which they were overqualified; a B.Tech or MBA followed by clerical, sales or gig work produces low educational returns.
• Skill-first hiring: employers in technology and creative sectors increasingly assess portfolios, coding tests, internships and project experience; models like Zoho Schools of Learning admit Class 12 and diploma students for industry-oriented training.
• AI disruption: artificial intelligence is reducing routine entry-level work in coding, documentation and back-office services, rewarding domain expertise and AI literacy that a static degree may not demonstrate.

The case that degrees retain value:

• The earnings premium: ILO analysis found that among regularly employed youth, estimated returns for graduates were 5.6 times those for secondary-educated youth, and 57.8 percent of employed graduates held regular jobs in 2022.
• The premium-institution advantage: reported median placement compensation of about Rs 20 lakh at IIT Bombay in 2024-25 and Rs 34.59 lakh at IIM Ahmedabad in 2025 shows the continuing value of quality, networks and employer trust.
• Professional necessity: medicine, law, architecture, teaching and research require formal qualifications and regulated training that short courses cannot substitute.
• The gatekeeping function: a bachelor's degree remains compulsory for major recruitment routes such as the UPSC Civil Services and SSC CGL examinations.

For mains answers, the synthesis matters more than the side chosen: degrees still signal, but skills deliver. Policy must therefore treat the degree as the foundation and employability as the deliverable, which is exactly what NEP 2020's multidisciplinary push and vocational integration attempt.

The private sector in education: partner and problem

India's education system is mixed, with public and private providers side by side, and the private sector has grown fastest in higher and professional education. The scale is striking: private unaided schools account for over 32 percent of all schools (2021-22); 67 percent of universities and 37 percent of colleges are private; and private schools enrol 41 percent of students despite forming only 26 percent of schools (UDISE+ 2024-25). Any serious account of access and equity must therefore reckon with private providers.

What the private sector brings:

• Academic freedom in faculty appointments and operations.
• Innovation in curriculum and pedagogy.
• Infrastructure investment beyond government capacity.
• Industry linkages that aid placements.
• Filling gaps where the state cannot reach.

What goes wrong:

• Inequality and affordability: NSSO data shows a strong correlation between household income and private-school attendance, and rising professional-college fees push medicine and engineering out of reach.
• Commercialisation: the profit motive overtakes the academic mission, with capitation fees persisting despite legal prohibition.
• Quality variability: NIRF data shows a wide range across private universities, alongside unethical practices such as dubious degrees and weak academic rigour.
• Faculty exploitation through low pay and contract status.
• Weak social inclusion: marginalised students remain underrepresented.

The regulatory frame:

• The RTE Act, 2009 mandates 25 percent reservation in private unaided schools for disadvantaged students.
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) affirmed the rights of private institutions while allowing reasonable state regulation; the Inamdar judgment (2005) addressed private professional colleges; many states have capitation-fee Acts.
• The standard way-forward package: strong regulation without throttling innovation, transparent fee structures through fee-fixation committees, mandatory NAAC and NBA accreditation, CSR-supported adoption of government schools and scholarship funds, public-private partnerships in skilling and research, and differential fees with cross-subsidy for poor students.

The private sector is here to stay and its contribution is real; the challenge is ensuring it does not turn education into a luxury good available only to the wealthy.

The digital stack of higher education: SWAYAM, SWAYAM Prabha and NEAT

NDEAR, covered earlier in this article, provides the federated digital-education architecture; the programmes below are its best-known applications in higher education, built on the digital-public-infrastructure idea that underpins UPI in finance and CoWIN in health.

The mains-relevant point is the model, not the acronyms: publicly funded digital infrastructure on which private and institutional content rides, extending the reach of quality teaching far beyond campus walls.

Way forward

• Fund access: move toward the NEP 6-percent-of-GDP target with differential financing for low-GER states, and scale PM-USHA, scholarships and regional-language materials.
• Fix accreditation honestly: mandatory NAAC/NBA coverage with funding linked to outcomes, so accreditation measures quality rather than paperwork.
• Double R and D: ANRF-led spending toward 2 percent of GDP, ONOS usage beyond subscription counts, and PAIR-style hub-and-spoke mentoring of emerging universities.
• Regulate without centralising: design HECI with real state and institutional representation, and pair autonomy for premier institutes (the IIM Act 2017 model) with accountability on equity and affordability.
• Internationalise carefully: foreign campuses with scholarship and cross-subsidy mandates so they do not become enclaves, and Indian campuses abroad as genuine education exports.
• Settle the language question by federal consensus, not fiat: implement the mother-tongue preference with trained teachers and materials, and keep the formula a choice, which is what the constitutional text supports.

NEET-UG 2026: when the gateway leaked

The NEET-UG exam scheduled for May 3, 2026, was cancelled by the National Testing Agency on May 12, 2026, after multiple paper leaks were reported across states. A re-examination was scheduled for June 21, 2026, a CBI probe was ordered, and the Supreme Court, hearing PILs through a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, warned that it might order on-ground inspections of exam centres.

This was not an isolated accident. The 2024 NEET-UG paper leak, the UGC-NET cancellation, and leaks in CSIR NET and state exams like UP Police Constable and Bihar BPSC repeat one pattern: systemic examination failure.

The policy response converges on three reforms: strengthen regulatory oversight with secure, tech-driven exam logistics; break the coaching-centre nexus with transparency in admissions; and fix the demand-supply gap by expanding quality institutions so that scarcity itself stops being the prize.

The Unfair Means Act, 2024: penalties for paper leaks

The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 covers public examinations conducted by UPSC, SSC, Railways, Banking recruitment bodies, the NTA and similar authorities, excluding state-level exams conducted by individual states. Its core definitions: unfair means covers leak of question papers or answer keys, tampering with documents, and technical tampering such as the use of spy cameras or Bluetooth devices.

• Punishment for individuals: rigorous imprisonment of 3-5 years with a fine of up to Rs.10 lakh.
• Organised crime in leaks: 10 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 crore.
• All offences are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
• The Act also gives the Centre the power to appoint a National Technical Committee on public examinations.

The equity and research schemes stack

Higher education's central schemes sit across access, research and funding:

The exam-relevant anchors: GER in higher education is targeted to reach 50 percent by 2035 under NEP 2020; a multidisciplinary approach with flexible curricula and multiple entry-exit options is now the stated norm.

Brain drain: push, pull and the way back

Brain drain refers to the migration of skilled and educated individuals to countries offering better opportunities. In 2025, Henley & Partners estimated about 3,500 high-net-worth Indians emigrating. The forces are familiar:

The response is the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) with a Rs.50,000 crore outlay, targeting a GERD rise to 2 percent of GDP, and schemes like VAJRA, SPARC and GIAN that draw overseas faculty and diaspora researchers into Indian institutions. The argument against panic is the brain circulation thesis: a well-connected diaspora can bring back knowledge, networks and capital.

UGC's 2025 flexibility reforms

Together the reforms push higher education toward multidisciplinarity, multiple entry and exit, and skill-embedded degrees, all aligned with NEP 2020's reimagination of the undergraduate years.

Key Terms

• Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017: The Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 declared the IIMs institutions of national importance and empowered them to award degrees, such as MBAs, instead of diplomas. It created a coordination forum of IIM directors and a Board of Governors-led governance structure. It matters for UPSC as a case study in balancing institutional autonomy with public accountability in higher education. IIMs awarding MBA degrees rather than postgraduate diplomas after the Act came into force.
• Higher Education Commission of India: The Higher Education Commission of India is the proposed single umbrella regulator for higher education, recommended by NEP 2020 to replace the UGC, AICTE, and NCTE. It would split regulation, accreditation, funding, and standard-setting into four verticals, NHERC, NAC, HEGC, and GEC, excluding medical and legal education. The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhikshan Bill to create it was introduced in December 2025 and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. UPSC angle: regulatory reform in education. The Bill's four-vertical design answers the Yash Pal Committee's 2009 call for one empowered regulator.
• the National Education Policy 2020: The National Education Policy 2020 is India's first education policy of the 21st century, replacing the 1986 policy. It restructures schooling into a 5+3+3+4 design, targets 100 per cent gross enrolment in school education by 2030, promotes mother-tongue instruction till Class 5, and creates a single regulator, the Higher Education Commission of India. It matters for UPSC across GS-2 education questions and prelims on its institutions and targets. the 5+3+3+4 curricular structure replacing the 10+2 system
• One Nation One Subscription: One Nation One Subscription is the central sector scheme launched on 1 January 2025 with an outlay of Rs 6,000 crore for 2025-27, creating a single national consortium for e-journal access. Over 6,300 government higher education and research institutions, covering about 1.8 crore students and researchers, get access to more than 13,000 journals from 30 publishers, coordinated by INFLIBNET. For UPSC, it is the key example of equitable research infrastructure. The scheme replaced ten fragmented library consortia with one centrally negotiated subscription.
• Academic Bank of Credits: The Academic Bank of Credits is a national digital repository under the National Education Policy 2020 that stores the academic credits a student earns across institutions, operationalised through UGC regulations of 2021 and integrated with DigiLocker. It enables multiple entry and multiple exit: credits stay valid for up to seven years and can be transferred between institutions or redeemed for certificates, diplomas and degrees. It is UPSC's flagship example of flexibility and student mobility in higher education. a student pausing a degree and rejoining later with accumulated credits intact
• Unfair Means Act, 2024: Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024: covers public exams by UPSC, SSC, Railways, banking bodies and the NTA; defines unfair means (leaks, tampering); 3-5 years and Rs.10 lakh fine for individuals, 10 years and Rs.1 crore for organised crime; offences cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable.
• National Testing Agency: Central body conducting entrance exams including NEET-UG; its credibility was hit by the 2024 NEET leak and the 2026 cancellation.
• Gross Enrolment Ratio: The Gross Enrolment Ratio is the ratio of total enrolment at a given education level to the population of the official age group for that level, expressed as a percentage. Because it counts every enrolled student regardless of age, it can exceed 100 per cent. For UPSC, it is the headline access metric reported in UDISE+ and the All India Survey on Higher Education. A GER above 100 per cent at primary level typically reflects over-age enrolment rather than genuine universal coverage.
• UGC 2025 regulations: Reforms package: biannual admissions, discipline flexibility regardless of Class XII stream, Recognition of Prior Learning, and a 50:50 split between core and skill-based credits.
• quality of life: Quality of life is the overall well-being of individuals and societies, measured through health, education, income, environment, and freedom rather than through income alone. It underpins human development thinking and the sustainable development goals, and it is the standard against which welfare schemes are judged. It serves GS-2 social justice and GS-3 inclusive growth. the UNDP's Human Development Index, first published in 1990
• AICTE and NCTE: The All India Council for Technical Education and the National Council for Teacher Education are India's statutory regulators of professional education. AICTE, made statutory by the AICTE Act of 1987, approves and sets standards for engineering, management and other technical institutions, while NCTE, statutory under the NCTE Act of 1993, lays down norms for teacher-education courses and institutions. Together they exemplify the Centre's quality-regulation role in higher and professional education, a frequent UPSC governance topic. AICTE approval required before a new engineering college can admit students
• ANRF and ONOS: ANRF and ONOS are the twin pillars of India's research-access reforms. One Nation One Subscription, launched on 1 January 2025 as a central sector scheme with about Rs 6,000 crore for three years, gives all government higher-education and R&D institutions access to over 13,000 e-journals from 30 international publishers through one nationally negotiated subscription coordinated by INFLIBNET. The Anusandhan National Research Foundation monitors usage and steers the national research agenda alongside it. a state university researcher accessing Elsevier and Springer journals through the single national subscription

Practice questions