09-07-2025
Rejuvenating state public universities
It is a matter of gratification that the State Public Universities (SPUs), which are fighting for their survival from the onslaught of deemed and private universities, received the attention of the NITI Aayog and prepared a policy report (February 2025) titled 'Expanding Quality Higher Education Through States and State Public Universities'. The report listed 57 key challenges in the four major areas of quality funding, governance and employability.
It duly acknowledged the significant role played by the SSPUs. SPUs are predominant in the university system of higher education. According to the All India Survey of Higher Education report, there are 445 SPUs as against only 53 central universities. By virtue of a policy shift at the Central and state levels, a new breed of institutions classified as deemed and private universities have mushroomed.
As per the AISHE report there are 81 private deemed Universities and 391 state private universities, forcing the pendulum to lean towards private participation. It is no secret that both the central and state governments have dumped the idea that education shall be a 'merit good' in precept and practice. It appears that it is the policy of the state governments to reduce the investment in higher education.
Despite the lukewarm treatment meted out to them, the mark of SPUs in the higher education sector remains indelible in terms of access to higher education, low-fee structure and supervision of the system.
As per the AISHE report 2021-22, SPUs account for 81 per cent of student enrolment, thereby shooting up the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) to the present level of 28.4 per cent. SPUs are also prime movers in maintaining Gender Parity Index (GPI) and enhancing the same from 0.87 in 2011-12 to 1.01 in 2021-22 for the entire nation.
However, despite such significance, SPUs are beset with insurmountable challenges and deep-rooted problems like acute shortage of faculty, inadequate infrastructure, comparatively inferior laboratories, insufficient grants and to cap it all n overwhelming political pressure.
The policy recommendations of NITI Aayog centred around four major challenges, including quality, funding, governance and employability.
The implementation roadmap is categorised into three time periods-short term (up to two years), medium term (2-5 years) and long term (over five years). It is quite laudable that Aayog has tried to identify the players responsible for implementing the roadmap. The irony of the situation is that none of the identified individuals is new to the system but integral to it.
Even then, they could not arrest the downfall of the PSUs. The ills besetting PSUs require a major surgery and not a 'pain balm treatment'.
An attempt is being made here to detail the major and serious issues faced by them and how infeasible are the recommendations of NITI Aayog team in this regard. I am also trying to offer a more direct and realistic implementation process towards ameliorating the plight of SPUs.
The first and foremost issue pertains to the acute shortage of faculty. As per one estimate, almost 50 per cent of the faculty positions in SPUs remain vacant. The entire activity is operated according to the whims and fancies of the state governments and mostly to the disadvantage of universities. We have come across instances wherein some state governments did not sanction a single faculty position, although new courses and programmes were incorporated into the curriculum. The common refrain of the authorities is 'budget' constraints. The recruitment processes of such institutes face litigation one too many, making it near impossible for the incumbent Vice-Chancellor to fill the vacancies during his three-year tenure.
The teaching deficiency is made good by the appointment of part-time, contract and guest faculty. The irony of the situation is that the average service of these temporary faculty is anywhere around 10-15 years; and many of them become ineligible, if the universities apply a cap on the age of entry into service. NITI Aayog puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the state government, but precious little progress is made on this front.
The second relates to lack of a sound base of research in terms of good quality infrastructure and trained faculty. Spending on research projects is miniscule, while the capability of these institutions to mobilise funds from agencies like DST, DBT, UGC, AICTE, other departments and ministries is dismal. This is exacerbated by the limited access to high-ranking quality journals.
To set the things right, the NITI Aayog called for formulation of a clear policy for research, allocation of funds for establishing research labs, boosting collaborations and the need to have more centres of excellence. But the sorry state-of-affairs is that those entrusted with this responsibility are in deep slumber.
The third factor relates to the complete absence of institution-industry interface in most SPUs. This needs to be stepped up to recognisable levels like the private institutions, which provide pre-placement training and long-term internships. Alternatively, SPUs can avail the opportunities provided through platforms like 'National Career Service' and AICTE's internship facility.
The fourth dimension relates to funding of SPUs. Compared to central universities, IITs and NITs, SPUs are totally dependent on block grants extended by the respective state governments or through self-finance courses. Projects and consultancy are quite unthinkable.
The final and fifth issue pertains to governance. At a time when universities were founded by princely states, the governing structures and funding were exemplary. The best example is the establishment of Osmania University by Nawab Osman Ali Khan in 1917. The iconic Arts College building remains a timeless architectural marvel.
In the given circumstances, it is the considered opinion of the author that measures be taken to categorise SPUs into teaching and research outfits with designated objectives and targets. As a matter of fact, this is also the prescription of the NEP, 2020.
The central government should take the lead by providing the necessary funding. It is time every HEI is allowed and provided with a congenial atmosphere to emerge as institutions of distinctive character and capable of creating their own USP and 'Brand Image'.
(The writer is a former Vice-Chancellor of Acharya Nagarjuna University)
