Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
— Misattributed to Albert Einstein
Under the Government of India Act 1935 and the original Constitution, education was a provincial subject. This reflected the principle of subsidiarity: functions should be exercised at the lowest level capable of addressing them. Education is the quintessential example of this principle. Schools, colleges, and universities are deeply embedded in local language, culture, and labour markets; hence, states are best placed to innovate. The Union’s role was intended to be limited to institutions of national importance and prescribing broad standards — a balance seen in mature federations like the US, Canada, and Germany.
This was fundamentally altered by the 42nd Amendment (1976), which moved education to the Concurrent List. Over time, Union authority has extended through multiple channels. These include expansive judicial interpretations of Entry 66 (“coordination and determination of standards”) of the Union List, regulatory activism by bodies such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Medical Commission (NMC), the introduction of high-stakes national entrance examinations, and fiscal conditionality. What was conceived as coordination has hardened into micromanagement. There is a misalignment between authority and responsibility. States remain politically accountable despite diminishing control over admissions, curriculum, and governance.
Centralisation without excellence
Half a century is ample time to judge this experiment. The verdict is clear: centralisation has not delivered the educational transformation it promised. On global indicators, Indian education performs significantly worse than decentralised federations and trails several developing peers like China and Brazil. The result is a structural imbalance where the Union is overstretched, and states are disempowered.
The schooling deficit
According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2025, India’s mean years of schooling for adults is only 6.9 years — well below the global average of 8.8. Comparable figures for developing countries are higher: China records 8.0 years, Brazil 8.4 years, and South Africa 11.6 years. This deficit directly weakens the quality of India’s human capital. India’s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in elementary education (Classes I–VIII) stood at 90.6% in 2024–25 according to UDISE+ data. While substantial progress has been made, this still falls short of universal elementary education, a constitutional objective originally envisaged for 1960.
Learning outcomes reveal similar limitations. Forty-three years after the adoption of the three-language formula, only 7.1% of Indians were trilingual (Census 2011), with figures below 2% in Hindi heartland states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand. Domestic surveys consistently report weak foundational skills. India’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — a global assessment of mathematics, reading, and science for 15-year-olds — confirms this diagnosis. In 2009, India ranked 73rd out of 74 participating countries, ahead only of Kyrgyzstan.
Higher education stagnation
India’s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education stood at 28.4%, far below the global average of 40% recorded by UNESCO. Centralisation has also failed to reduce inter-state disparities. GER in higher education varies widely — from 47% in Tamil Nadu to 16.9% in Assam. Where progress has occurred, it has largely been driven by state initiatives, social movements, and administrative capacity rather than central regulation. Global university rankings further highlight India’s stagnation. In the Times Higher Education Rankings (2026), no Indian institution featured in the top 200. The Indian Institute of Science (Bengaluru) was placed in the 201–250 band, while most other leading institutions appeared only in much lower bands. By contrast, the US had 55 institutions in the top 200, Germany 18, the UK 26, Australia 10, Canada 9, and China 13.
The QS World University Rankings (2026) present a similar picture. Only three Indian institutions entered the top 200 — IIT Delhi (123), IIT Bombay (129), and IIT Madras (180) — with most others placed in lower bands (201–700). In comparison, the US had 39 institutions in the top 200, the UK 28, Australia 13, Germany 9, Canada 9, and China 9. In the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (2025), no Indian institution appeared in the top 500. Leading institutes such as IISc and the IITs were placed in the 501–900 bands. Meanwhile, the US had 58 institutions in the top 200, China 35, Germany 11, Australia 8, Canada 8, and the UK 18. These outcomes are not accidental. They reflect a persistent misconception that centralisation and regulation are panaceas for the challenges of every sector, including education. When decision-making is concentrated at the top, innovation diminishes, accountability becomes diffused, and universities stagnate. Uniform regulation has produced uniform mediocrity across the academic landscape.
Distorted national priorities
Centralisation has also distorted national priorities. The Union government directly runs about 2,000 schools, supervises nearly 32,000 private or aided schools through CBSE, and manages 57 Central universities along with roughly 165 Institutions of National Importance. By undertaking functions better suited for states, it has diverted attention from areas where national leadership is indispensable — most notably, research and development. India’s R&D expenditure remains at a modest 0.65% of GDP, far below the US (3.59%) or China (2.56%). Correspondingly, citation impact and research quality remain low. According to the Nature Index (2023), India ranked 14th globally, trailing behind China (1st), the US (2nd), and Australia (10th).
The way forward
The Concurrent List experiment has clearly failed. The Constitution should be amended to return “education, including technical and medical education and universities, subject to Entries 63–66 of List I” to the State List. The Union should stop running schools, colleges, and universities and transfer them to the respective states. It should instead focus on institutions of national importance, advanced research, and enhanced funding. While some states may falter, others will build centres of excellence, as seen in decentralised federations. Excellence arises not from command, but from empowered institutions closer to the ground.
Concluded
The author is retired IAS officer of Tamil Nadu
cadre, former Vice-Chancellor of Indian
Maritime University, Chennai, and Member,
High-Level Committee on Union-State Relations
constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu