Global partnerships or profit ventures? Rethinking foreign universities in India

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak 

On 9 June 2026, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan handed letters of approval to two British universities—the University of Bristol and the University of York—and one Australian institution, the University of New South Wales, permitting them to establish campuses in Mumbai and Bengaluru. He described the move as a major step toward fulfilling the "internationalisation vision" of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, formulated under the BJP-led government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

However, this development is neither genuine internationalisation nor a meaningful global educational partnership aimed at strengthening Indian higher education through knowledge exchange, technology transfer, innovation, or curriculum development suited to India's social and economic needs.

The educational culture shaped by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) tends to socialise minds within narrow ethnocultural frameworks rather than cultivate a deeper understanding of internationalisation and global collaboration. Such concepts require openness, critical inquiry, and scientific engagement across cultures and knowledge systems. Ironically, anthropology—the discipline Mr. Pradhan studied at the historic Utkal University in Odisha—offers valuable insights into the meaning and practice of internationalisation. As a student, he had the opportunity to learn from distinguished scholars of Indian anthropology who emphasised the importance of understanding societies through diverse perspectives.

Latin American anthropologist Gustavo Lins Ribeiro, writing in Social Anthropology (2016), described internationalisation as a response to the quasi-colonial structures that continue to shape global academic exchanges. He argued that higher education systems are often influenced by funding agencies and dominant Western intellectual frameworks that marginalise local knowledge traditions and alternative perspectives emerging from the global periphery. In the world of business and economics, internationalisation is commonly understood as a strategy for expanding operations across borders to maximise profits and diversify risks.

The transnational education strategies pursued by Australian, American, and British universities largely follow this latter model. Offshore campuses are established not primarily to foster intellectual collaboration but to generate revenue and support institutions facing financial pressures at home. These pressures have themselves emerged from the growing commercialisation, privatisation, and commodification of education. The same market-driven logic is now exported through overseas campuses, often accompanied by Eurocentric knowledge traditions.

These universities represent not only prestigious centres of learning but also institutions rooted in particular historical and intellectual traditions shaped by colonial legacies. Critics argue that such traditions frequently marginalise local knowledge systems while failing to adequately address questions of employability, social relevance, and educational equity even within their own countries. There is little reason, therefore, to assume that simply transplanting these institutions into India will automatically produce better outcomes.

Mr. Pradhan has also characterised these ventures as examples of "global educational partnerships." Yet a genuine global partnership in education involves much more than opening branch campuses. It requires students and faculty from different countries to engage in meaningful exchanges of ideas, collaborate in research, and jointly develop curricula informed by democratic, secular, scientific, and inclusive values. Such partnerships should strengthen innovation while addressing local social, economic, and cultural challenges.

A truly global educational partnership encourages collaborative research and research-led teaching that responds to community needs while fostering employability, scientific thinking, and global citizenship rooted in local realities. It should create knowledge that serves society rather than markets. Critics of contemporary higher education argue that many Western universities increasingly function as credential-producing enterprises, prioritising enrolment growth and revenue generation over the transformative goals traditionally associated with higher learning. From this perspective, what is being presented as partnership may, in reality, be little more than a commercial transaction.

Questions also arise regarding the academic infrastructure of offshore campuses. Meaningful higher education requires highly qualified faculty, active research environments, well-equipped laboratories, extensive libraries, and vibrant intellectual communities. Without these foundations, teaching risks becoming detached from research and innovation. If education is reduced to a market commodity, students may receive certificates rather than the substantive intellectual development necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

As Union Education Minister, Mr. Pradhan is promoting a policy that appears to sit uneasily with the BJP's longstanding commitment to the "Indianisation" of education. The contradiction is difficult to ignore. If the objective is to strengthen indigenous knowledge systems and educational traditions, then the reliance on foreign branch campuses raises important questions about policy coherence. Critics argue that opening campuses in rented commercial spaces is less about educational transformation and more about creating new markets for foreign institutions. In their view, such initiatives risk weakening public education while expanding opportunities for private profit.

There is also a broader ideological contradiction at play. Hindutva's contemporary educational agenda frequently emphasises cultural nationalism and the recovery of indigenous traditions. Yet the embrace of foreign universities appears to reflect a willingness to rely on educational models shaped by Western intellectual and institutional frameworks. Critics contend that Hindutva itself emerged partly through engagement with European ideas of nationhood, identity, and cultural organisation. Seen from this perspective, the arrival of foreign universities is not a departure from Hindutva's trajectory but a continuation of its complex relationship with Western influences.

The result, according to critics, is an educational environment increasingly shaped by market interests rather than public needs. Such an approach benefits corporations and educational enterprises while doing little to address the aspirations of students, educators, and communities. It risks transforming higher education into a commercial service rather than a public good essential for democratic development and social progress.

India's future lies not in the uncritical importation of foreign educational models but in building a system that combines the strengths of local knowledge traditions with the best ideas emerging from across the world. Scientific inquiry, secular values, democratic engagement, and social justice must remain at the heart of this effort. Genuine internationalisation would involve the free and equitable exchange of students, scholars, ideas, and research across borders, enriching both local and global knowledge systems.

Such an approach would create an educational framework capable of promoting humanity, solidarity, peace, and shared prosperity. That, rather than the commercial expansion of foreign campuses, would represent the true internationalisation of Indian higher education.