Five years into NEP 2020, how far has India turned its global education ambitions into reality?
Image Source: Getty Images
This essay is part of the series “Five Years of NEP 2020: From Vision to Reality”
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 outlined an ambitious vision for internationalising India’s higher education. It envisaged integration of international knowledge, skills, and pedagogy as a critical aspect of future-readiness and educational competitiveness, which will prepare students studying in India for a globalised and interconnected world.
Internationalisation, therefore, would serve two important purposes: first, it will help to retain talent within the country, offering them a globally competitive education at home, and second, it would propel India onto the world stage, not only as a consumer, but as a preferred study destination for foreign students. Five years after NEP, this article examines how much of this bold promise has translated into action, what hurdles remain, and what must be our path forward.
The efforts for internationalisation of higher education started with the Study in India (SII) programme in 2018, which set a target of attracting 200,00 international students in the next five years. NEP 2020, however, for the first time, offered a comprehensive framework for the internationalisation of Indian higher education, with several key mandates:
The policy focuses on internationalisation of higher education, with limited directions for school-level internationalisation.
While the vision is ambitious, three areas remain less emphasised: First, the policy focuses on internationalisation of higher education, with limited directions for school-level internationalisation. Second, it does not offer details on financing this transformation, like financial incentives for foreign universities to establish Indian campuses or funding to offer large-scale scholarships for inbound international students. Third, NEP disproportionately focuses on world rankings. It permits the entry of only those foreign universities who ranked in the global top 100, excluding many specialised institutions, like Max Planck, that do not participate in such rankings and may therefore lack a qualifying global or subject ranking.
Although the implementation of internationalisation started slowly, some notable progress has been made in the last year. The UGC has emerged as the main driver of regulatory transformation, issuing critical guidelines like Guidelines on Internationalisation of Higher Education (2021), which provides a formal roadmap for institutions to establish Offices of International Affairs. Based on these, over 179 HEIs have established Offices for International Affairs. Another concrete reform was the UGC’s Academic Collaboration Regulations (2022), enabling Indian institutions to offer twinning, joint, and dual degree programmes with foreign universities. This was followed by the operationalisation of the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), to facilitate seamless credit transfers across institutions, including global partners.
Through the Foreign Higher Educational Institutions (FHEI) Regulations 2023, UGC has made a practical choice of broadening the eligibility for foreign university campuses, expanding it to be ranked within the top 500 in global overall or subject-wise rankings, or possessing ‘outstanding expertise’ in a particular area. As of June 2025, nine foreign universities have been approved or issued letters of intent across different locations—two in GIFT City, one in Gurgaon, one in Bengaluru, and five in Navi Mumbai.
Simultaneously, India’s institutions are expanding their global footprint—IITs are opening campuses in Abu Dhabi, Tanzania, and IIM is going to Dubai. Several Indian universities, including Shiv Nadar and Amity, have launched dual and joint degree programs in collaboration with American, Australian, and European institutions. Meanwhile, inbound mobility efforts under the SII initiative continue, with a steady increase in enrolment from Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East, though still short of the ambitious 200,000-student target.
For vocational education, the government approved a National Scheme for industrial training institutes (ITI) Upgradation (2025) scheme, with a INR60,000 crore outlay. The scheme aims to position ITIs as “aspirational institutes of skills” with deep industry and international linkages, for domestic as well as global workforce needs. National Skill Development Council (NSDC) is encouraging collaboration with foreign vocational providers for co-branded curriculum, certification, and standards alignment.
Regulatory complexities like visa barriers and institutional readiness or capacity continue to challenge scalability. Even after five years, impact exists only in policy outputs, which are forward-looking but vague.
However, several gaps remain: the HECI, which was envisioned as the single regulator to streamline these reforms, has still not been set up. While the bill has been drafted and refined through stakeholder consultations, it has not yet been enacted or tabled in Parliament, and reflects a major delay. Regulatory complexities like visa barriers and institutional readiness or capacity continue to challenge scalability. Even after five years, impact exists only in policy outputs, which are forward-looking but vague. Their results in terms of measurable outcomes, like a tangible increase in international enrolment, research collaborations, or rankings improvements, are yet to be seen. Moreover, a slow implementation of internationalisation at home strategies, like global curriculum integration, language support for foreign students, and cross-cultural student exchange, shows a bias toward structural and symbolic moves, rather than systemic transformation.
The first and most urgent need is to streamline and unify regulatory frameworks and develop a single-window mechanism for all international collaborations, foreign campus approvals, and student or faculty mobility. This requires expediting the establishment of the HECI as a unified, transparent, and efficient regulatory authority, replacing the current fragmented system.
Second, is to enhance the infrastructure and institutional capacity of Indian universities, equipping them with digital resources and student services to attract and support international students. Faculty upskilling in global pedagogies, research collaboration, and intercultural competence is also necessary.
Expanding financial incentives through dedicated scholarship schemes and research grants for inbound international students and faculty, as well as for Indian students seeking global exposure, will attract talent. However, this requires optimal and long-term resource allocation to sustain such initiatives and maintain financial viability for HEIs.
The Study in India campaign needs to be revamped with targeted international marketing, alumni engagement, and partnerships with global education fairs. It must be rebranded using India’s cultural assets like Yoga, Ayurveda, and classical arts as pillars of educational diplomacy and international appeal.
Momentum of joint or dual degree programmes with reputed global partners, especially in emerging fields like data analytics, climate change, and sustainability, should be strengthened, and Indian campuses abroad must be offered incentives and diplomatic support.
Internationalisation, if not carefully managed, risks increasing the costs of higher education and widening access gaps by potentially making global opportunities available only to students from privileged backgrounds. Therefore, targeted measures like a minimum number of subsidised seats, scholarships, fee waivers and support to ICT-based internationalisation are required to create pathways and support systems for students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Study in India campaign needs to be revamped with targeted international marketing, alumni engagement, and partnerships with global education fairs.
Internationalisation efforts in vocational education should be strengthened across its polytechnics and skilling centres by creating bilateral skill mobility agreements linked to migration corridors and labour market needs. Promoting student and trainer exchanges, global internships, and exposure visits under Skill India’s international vertical can be helpful.
Lastly, there is a need to develop robust mechanisms to track progress, measure impact, and ensure accountability in internationalisation efforts. This can be achieved by establishing transparent, technology-driven systems for regularly benchmarking Indian HEIs against global standards and rankings and focusing on international accreditation. Additionally, periodic assessments by national bodies like the proposed National Accreditation Council, as envisioned in NEP, should be conducted to ensure Indian institutions remain competitive and accountable at an international level.
While India is still in the early phases of realising its global education ambition, the momentum created post-NEP has laid a strong potential for sustainable internationalisation in the years ahead. Continued reforms, investment, and global engagement are essential to overcome persistent challenges and unlock India’s full potential as a vibrant, inclusive, and globally competitive education hub.
Arpan Tulsyan is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy, Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Arpan Tulsyan is a Senior Fellow at ORF’s Centre for New Economic Diplomacy (CNED). With 16 years of experience in development research and policy advocacy, Arpan ...
Read More +
PREV
