Critiquing the Influence of Globalization and Free Markets on Indian Higher Education

When India opened up its economy in 1991, the ripple effects were felt far beyond trade and industry – they reached deep into the country’s classrooms and campuses. Higher education, once seen as a public good and a constitutional responsibility of the state, began a gradual transformation into a market commodity. Today, the question is no longer whether globalization and free market policies have reshaped Indian higher education, but at what cost – and to whom.

From public good to marketable service 🔗

The shift did not happen overnight. Since India started embracing neoliberal policies in 1991, the objectives of higher education gradually shifted from philanthropy and national development toward profit-maximization. The Indian Constitution had enshrined education as a tool for building a democratic, secular, and equitable society. But the liberalization-privatization-globalization (LPG) framework began pulling institutions in a different direction – toward the marketplace.

Two significant developments followed the arrival of globalization: first, the emergence of education as a profitable business activity, and second, a technological revolution that created new modes of delivering education. Together, these made higher education not just commercially attractive but globally tradable. The typical policies associated with neoliberalism – free trade, privatization, and changes in government spending to stimulate the private sector – brought visible and invisible changes to how India’s higher education system operates.

The role of GATS: education as a trade service 🔗

The institutional backbone of this transformation is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) – a World Trade Organization (WTO) framework introduced in 1995 that brought education into the global trade architecture for the first time. India signed the WTO ministerial agreement at Nairobi in 2015, formally aligning itself with GATS commitments in higher education, research, and health – treating these sectors as commodities for global trade.

Under GATS, higher education falls under four modes of trade delivery: cross-border supply (online courses), consumption abroad (students studying overseas), commercial presence (foreign universities setting up campuses in India), and movement of persons (faculty and student exchanges). Critics argue that GATS promotes the commercialization of education, turning it into a tradable commodity rather than a public service.

One of the most contentious aspects is the “national treatment” clause. Under this provision, host countries cannot discriminate between foreign and domestic education providers in terms of subsidies, licenses, or standards – effectively creating a level playing field for profit-driven foreign institutions alongside public universities. The concern is clear: public institutions built on the principle of social welfare are forced to compete with commercially driven enterprises operating under very different motives.

Privatization and the retreat of the state 🔗

In the scenario of globalization and liberalization, the government has been withdrawing from incremental investment in higher education, with accountability gradually shifting to private stakeholders. The result has been a rapid expansion of private institutions – self-financing engineering colleges, management schools, and deemed universities – driven by market forces rather than public interest.

Privatization of higher education in India has emerged in several forms: introducing self-financing courses within government institutions, converting aided private institutions into fully private self-financing ones, and allowing the proliferation of private institutions with or without formal recognition. The number of colleges in India grew from 695 in 1950 to over 39,000 by 2018 – a dramatic expansion, but one driven largely by private investment and commercial logic.

Yet quantity has not translated into quality. With new policies of commodification of higher education, India’s global rank in research publication output slipped from 8th in 1985 to 14th in 2006. Among hundreds of private universities, only nine private institutions featured in the top 50 of the India Today Higher Education Survey, and all nine had been in existence for many years – suggesting that the rapid commercial expansion of new private players has not yielded academic excellence.

Commodification of knowledge and the erosion of social purpose 🔗

At the heart of the critique is what sociologists call the commodification of education – the process by which learning is reduced to a purchasable product with a market value. When a market is introduced into education, it can harm citizenship in two ways: it enables politicians to absolve themselves of responsibility and accountability for public services, and it undermines people’s cognitive ability to act as informed citizens.

Universities, under market pressure, increasingly design curricula around industry demands. Market demand is increasingly influencing what is taught and researched, seriously eroding higher education’s foundational role in developing good citizens of civil society. Critical thinking, humanities, and social sciences – fields that don’t offer immediate employability – are steadily deprioritized in favor of vocational and professional programs that promise returns on investment. Education stops being about questioning the world and starts being about fitting into it.

Commodification of education, research, and knowledge does not serve the long-range interests of the nation – it could lead to truncated growth and lopsided development of higher education. The social responsibility of universities – to produce not just employable graduates but engaged democratic citizens – gets steadily hollowed out in the chase for rankings, revenue, and market relevance.

Who pays the price? Marginalized communities and unequal access 🔗

The starkest consequence of market-driven higher education is who gets left out. India’s higher education system is already navigating deep caste, class, and gender inequalities – and privatization sharpens these fault lines rather than smoothing them.

The relaxation of several national policies under privatization has reduced the proportion of students from historically marginalized groups, while maintaining the dominance of higher caste and class students from the Hindu majority. In the last ten to fifteen years, inequality in education has worsened with increasing privatization, with marginalized students – including Dalits, Adivasis, migrant laborers’ children, and religious minorities – suffering the most.

Privatization promotes English-medium education, marginalizing regional languages and indigenous knowledge systems. Tribal communities, in particular, suffer as their children are forced into curricula that disregard their cultural context, leading to higher dropout rates. The rise of expensive private coaching centers further tilts the competitive landscape against students who cannot afford them.

India ranked 129th out of 146 countries in tertiary education enrolment according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2024, indicating that gender-based exclusion in higher education remains severe. For Dalit women – who face the intersection of caste, gender, and class disadvantage – the barriers are compounded further. Research consistently shows that non-Dalit students reproduce discriminatory social practices against Dalit males and females in higher education settings, confirming that caste has a strong and continuing influence on institutional life.

The contradiction of reservation policies in a privatized landscape 🔗

India’s constitutional reservation system was designed precisely to correct historical exclusions – but it largely applies to publicly funded institutions. Private institutions can offer scholarships and financial aid, but their high fees often limit access for many, and concerns about equity and quality remain significant. As the sector tilts further toward private provision, the protective coverage of affirmative action narrows – leaving marginalized students with fewer pathways to quality education.

Local cultural values under pressure 🔗

Globalization’s influence on Indian higher education is not only economic – it is deeply cultural. The increasing dominance of Western academic frameworks, English as the medium of instruction, and internationally standardized curricula creates a subtle but real devaluation of indigenous knowledge systems, regional languages, and local pedagogical traditions.

Globalization exercises a profound influence on education, and technological developments have encouraged universities to interact with students from different nationalities – but this openness can come at the cost of cultural specificity and local relevance. When foreign universities enter India under GATS provisions, their curricula, pedagogical assumptions, and institutional cultures do not automatically accommodate the diversity of India’s social reality.

Critics also point to the NEP 2020 in this context. While the policy advocates for multidisciplinary liberal education to meet the demands of the job market, it insidiously overlooks the importance of upholding the Constitution, secularism, equality, social justice, and the plurality that India’s social fabric demands. The move toward large-scale, homogenized mega-universities may optimize for global rankings while undermining the decentralized, culturally diverse character of Indian higher education.

The public funding deficit 🔗

The central government is spending just one percent of GDP on higher education, and advocates that the private sector must play an active role – in effect, withdrawing the state’s responsibility as education provider while facilitating entry of private institutions. This funding gap is itself the driver of privatization: not necessarily an ideological commitment to markets, but a fiscal abdication that opens the door to commercial players.

Countries where education has been heavily privatized have frequently failed to progress economically and socially, with erosion of public values. In contrast, countries that have treated education as a public good have consistently benefited more. The evidence from global comparisons suggests that India’s path toward market-driven higher education may be trading long-term social development for short-term fiscal relief.

Rethinking the purpose of higher education 🔗

The critique of globalization and free market influence on Indian higher education is ultimately a critique of purpose. India’s Constitution envisioned higher education as a vehicle for democracy, equity, and the creation of an informed citizenry. The five original goals of Indian higher education were: greater access, equal access or equity, quality and excellence, relevance, and the promotion of social values. Market logic addresses one of these – it may expand access in numerical terms – but it actively undermines the others, especially equity and the promotion of social values.

The State is primarily responsible for ensuring quality education at all levels and in all regions – and this entails not just permitting private players, but strengthening public institutions and finding ways to raise public resources for higher education. Without a robust public sector anchoring the system, the education market will always serve those who can already afford to buy into it.

The challenge for India is not to reject globalization wholesale, but to engage with it critically – retaining what expands opportunity while resisting what deepens inequality. That requires treating education not as a frontier market to be opened, but as a social institution to be protected.

What do you think? As private institutions continue to multiply while public funding for higher education remains low, is it possible to build an equitable and excellent system through market forces alone – or does India need a fundamental rethinking of how it funds and governs higher education? And in a system increasingly shaped by global trade agreements like GATS, how much control should a nation retain over what its students learn, and who gets to learn it?

References

1. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/newproposals/article/download/184757/185400
2. https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/1408914/
3. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/4986
4. https://www.epw.in/engage/article/education-policy-2020-privatisation-higher-education
5. https://www.dalvoy.com/en/upsc/mains/previous-years/2017/economics-paper-i/gats-higher-education-india
6. https://peoplesdemocracy.in/2015/0816_pd/higher-education-india-way-nairobi-gats
7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369256552_Globalization_and_Higher_Education_in_India
8. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/17527
9. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2022/6/1244.pdf
10. https://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/gats-and-higher-education-in-india-implications-and-concerns/
11. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14545
12. https://www.rosalux.de/en/news/id/46752/confronting-caste-in-indian-universities
13. https://hubsociology.com/privatization-of-education-and-marginalized-group/
14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2428874
15. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057925.2023.2254214
16. https://www.dalvoy.com/en/upsc/mains/previous-years/2019/sociology-paper-i/access-exclusion-higher-education-india
17. https://www.academia.edu/4243654/GLOBALISATION_AND_HIGHER_EDUCATION_THREAT_OR_OPPORTUNITY