Global Degrees; Indian Soil: India’s Tryst With Foreign Universities

India’s higher education landscape is entering uncharted territory. For the first time since independence, the government has opened its doors to allow globally ranked foreign universities to set up physical campuses in the country. Leading this new wave is the University of Southampton’s Gurugram campus, expected to open in August 2025. Others – including the Illinois Institute of Technology, University of York, University of Western Australia, and Italy’s Istituto Europeo di Design – are already laying groundwork in cities like Mumbai and Chennai.

This policy shift, formalised through the University Grants Commission (UGC)’s 2023 regulations and grounded in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, is being hailed as a milestone.

But before we break into applause, we must ask: Why now? And who really benefits?

Why They’re Coming – and Why Now

The answer lies not just in India’s growing promise, but in the West’s shrinking prospects. Foreign universities face declining enrolments, budget pressures, and demographic dips. Their domestic student bases are aging or plateauing. India, by contrast, is young, ambitious, and on the brink of an educational explosion. With a Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of only 29%, and millions of students entering higher education in the coming decade, India is arguably the most exciting education market in the world.

For foreign institutions struggling to stay financially viable, India offers scale, relevance, and a booming middle class willing to invest in quality degrees. This isn’t philanthropy – it’s strategy.

Opportunity Meets Oversight

To its credit, the UGC has established a robust regulatory framework. Only globally ranked universities or those deemed “eminent” by credible home regulators are eligible. A multi-tiered application process ensures that only serious players make the cut.

Once approved, institutions enjoy considerable autonomy in admission, curriculum, faculty hiring, and fee structures. But they must also publish transparent policies, face periodic audits, and risk losing approval if quality dips.

This balance between autonomy and accountability is essential. India must remain open but never naive.

Degrees, Dollars, and Red Lines

New UGC norms ensure that only degrees awarded directly by the foreign parent institutions will be recognised in India. Franchisees and proxy arrangements are strictly off-limits. Programs in sensitive fields like medicine and law remain under Indian regulators.

Importantly, foreign institutions are allowed to repatriate surplus revenues – subject to FEMA norms. But India must be more than a revenue stream. The academic promise must match the financial ambition.

Mind the Gaps: Accreditation and Rankings

Western universities follow decentralised, discipline-specific accreditation models. India, on the other hand, uses a centralised system through bodies like NAAC. But here lies the rub – who will accredit these foreign campuses?

With NAAC itself under scrutiny for credibility lapses and inconsistencies, it’s unclear whether it has the bandwidth or impartiality to handle globally ranked institutions. A weak or confused accreditation process will undermine the very promise of quality we are trying to import.

NIRF, already facing challenges in accurately ranking Indian institutions, is nowhere near ready to assess foreign campuses or provide meaningful comparisons.

Meanwhile, global rankings like QS or THE may treat Indian branches as inferior if they lack parity in research, infrastructure, or faculty. Branding without matching delivery will lead to a two-speed system – global names with local compromises.

To avoid this, institutions must invest in local depth, and India must urgently rethink how it benchmarks quality in this new global paradigm.

The Risk of Elitism

NEP 2020 envisions an inclusive, multidisciplinary, and flexible education system. Foreign campuses must not become gated bubbles accessible only to the elite. They must reflect India’s diversity, contextualise their curriculum, and engage with local realities – from languages to knowledge systems to community outreach.

This is not about transplanting Oxford into Gurgaon. It’s about co-creating a new academic ethos rooted in Indian soil.

Guardrails Before Glory

India must tread not just boldly, but wisely. In our enthusiasm to globalise, we must not compromise on our core values of equity, integrity, and national relevance. Guardrails are not optional – they are essential.

We need:

• Transparent and enforceable grievance redressal systems

• Real-time academic audits and accountability metrics

• Strong faculty collaboration and exchange with Indian institutions

• Firm rules on credit transfers and degree recognition

• Equitable fee structures to ensure broad access

• A transparent audit process that holds foreign campuses accountable to outcomes, not optics

Global engagement should strengthen our foundation, not hollow it out. The model must be reciprocal – India must gain as much as it gives.

Conclusion: India’s Moment – Host Strategically, Lead Decisively

This is the most consequential higher education reform India has undertaken in generations. Done right, it could stem brain drain, improve local academic ecosystems, and make India a credible alternative to traditional Western education hubs.

But the stakes are high. If we become merely a marketplace for foreign brands, we lose control of our narrative. This is India’s moment – not just to open its doors, but to set the terms of global engagement.

Foreign universities are coming not just because we’re ready, but because their options are shrinking. That gives us leverage. Let’s not waste it.

If we hold our line – with courage, clarity, and commitment – the world will not just come to India. It will look to India.

Dr. Karthick Sridhar is a policy strategist and Chair of the Outlook-ICARE India Rankings, driving transformative change in higher education.

Methodology

Our ranking methodology evaluates Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on five core criteria: Academic and Research Excellence, Industry Interface and Placements, Infrastructure & Facilities, Governance & Admissions, and Diversity & Outreach. Each broad parameter is further broken down into sub-parameters and indicators, each carrying a specific weightage.

To ensure fairness and accuracy, we employ a multi-faceted data collection approach. We gather ranking data through comprehensive surveys involving various stakeholders, including students, faculty, and others associated with the HEIs. Additionally, we meticulously vet the data by cross-referencing it with evidence and reliable third-party sources.

In cases where direct data may be limited, we resort to trusted and authoritative sources like AISHE, NAAC, NIRF, etc., to supplement the information. This ensures that our ranking process maintains its integrity and impartiality.

The data we collect is normalised to standardise scores across different parameters. This normalisation enables a fair comparison of institutions, regardless of their size or other factors that could influence raw scores. After normalisation, the scores for each measure are weighted appropriately, culminating in a final overall score on a scale of 1000.

We take great pride in our methodology, which results from extensive research and continuous refinement. We remain committed to improving our approach by actively seeking user feedback, engaging in discussions with academic leaders and higher education experts, conducting literature reviews, and analysing trends in our data. Moreover, we stay vigilant about incorporating new and relevant data while collaborating with vice-chancellors, deans, researchers, academicians, and prominent educationists to stay at the forefront of developments in the education landscape.

With this comprehensive and evolving approach, our ranking system aims to provide a reliable and up-to-date assessment of Higher Education Institutions, empowering stakeholders to make informed decisions and fostering continuous growth in the academic community.