Institutional Autonomy in Central Universities: A Case Study of Banaras Hindu University

Abstract

Striking an Augean balance between regulation of complex matrix of higher educational institutions and compulsion to grant autonomy to them to make choices and steer themselves has been an extremely difficult decision for the government. The procedural and substantive autonomy of institutions have varied depending on their type- centrally funded or state financed and the state/ buffer bodies created to regulate them. The internal autonomy within institutions granted to the affiliated institutions and faculty also vary significantly across institutions and within the same institution. These have changed with change of guards. The central universities and centrally funded institutions, compared to the state institutions, enjoy more freedom in administrative and academic matters and leeway in financial domain. There is however noticeable variations across central universities themselves. These variations and how they have shaped up the growth and evolution of these institutions are issues of interest that have been critically explored in the write up. The chapter taking Banaras Hindu University as case study examines institutional autonomy enjoyed by central universities at three levels-government to university, university to affiliated institutions and within university to faculties, departments and other bodies. Based on a research study conducted by Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (NIEPA) that investigated top officials of the university (Vice Chancellor, Registrar etc.), deans and heads of departments, members of faculty and students from chosen faculties and departments it attempts to capture the extent and the way autonomy flows in at different layers in the university and how the same affects the performance of the functionaries. The chapter concludes that despite rules and provisions laid down in the acts and statutes, the much talked about ‘shared governance model’ has not worked, while in administrative and financial matters the system continues to be bureaucratic with little autonomy to the functionaries, in academic matter it is at the most ‘hierarchical collegial’ i.e. dominated by senior faculty. It calls for a serious revamp in the way discretionary power is used by those at the helm to infringe autonomy of others down the ladder. © 2025 NIEPA.