By Bijoy A. Sangma
A university stands for its students, its faculty, and the pursuit of knowledge. When leadership fails, it is these pillars that bear the brunt. The unfolding crisis at NEHU is more than just an administrative dispute – it’s a warning sign of deeper structural flaws in India’s university system. With students protesting and faculty questioning governance, can the institution rebuild before further damage is done?
Established in 1973 through an Act of Parliament, North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) was envisioned as a central institution dedicated to addressing the educational aspirations of the Northeast while promoting research and regional development. Over the decades, it has contributed significantly to academia, public administration, and scientific research, producing distinguished alumni across various disciplines.
In its formative years, NEHU played a crucial role in bridging the educational gap between the region and the rest of the country. Strong academic leadership, faculty recruitment, and a thriving research culture helped establish its reputation. The university attracted professors from across India and abroad who contributed to its interdisciplinary approach to education, and students from across the Northeast and beyond sought admission to NEHU, seeing it as a gateway to higher opportunities.
However, recent years have witnessed growing challenges, including administrative bottlenecks, funding constraints, and a weakening of its academic environment. Concerns raised by faculty and students, coupled with a decline in national rankings, have put NEHU under scrutiny. While criticism has been directed at governance and leadership, these issues also reflect broader systemic challenges faced by Indian universities.
A Microcosm of India’s Higher Education Challenges
For nearly four years, NEHU has been navigating a complex governance landscape. A combination of administrative restructuring, faculty concerns, student protests, and political interventions has resulted in tensions within the institution. At the centre of these challenges is Vice-Chancellor Prof. Prabha Shankar Shukla, whose tenure has been marked by significant debate over leadership approaches, institutional transparency, and academic standards.
However, NEHU’s situation is not unique. Many higher education institutions in India grapple with governance structures, centralized decision-making, and financial constraints. The issues unfolding at NEHU serve as a case study for the need for institutional reforms across Indian universities, reinforcing the importance of academic autonomy and transparent leadership.
A Challenging Transition
When Prof. Shukla assumed office as Vice-Chancellor on July 27, 2021, his appointment, like many in higher education, was met with scrutiny. Some faculty members and students raised concerns regarding the selection process, highlighting the need for greater transparency in academic appointments.
By 2022, discussions on administrative efficiency gained momentum. Faculty members voiced concerns about participation in decision-making, resource allocation, and the pace of institutional reforms. While the administration has sought to address these challenges, differences in expectations have led to tensions.
In response to faculty and student concerns, the administration has maintained that restructuring efforts, procedural delays, and broader policy shifts have impacted decision-making. However, critics argue that a more consultative approach is necessary to foster trust and institutional cohesion.
A Decline in National Rankings
A major turning point came in October 2024, when NEHU witnessed a significant drop in its national rankings – from 59th place in 2021 to 136th place in 2024. This decline, though concerning, is a reflection of multiple factors, including research output, faculty appointments, and institutional reputation.
The administration has acknowledged the challenges but attributes them to a broader national trend affecting several public universities. Factors such as reduced funding, delayed faculty promotions, and shifting evaluation criteria have contributed to the ranking fluctuations. While critics see this as a failure of leadership, university officials argue that long-term solutions require structural reforms beyond immediate administrative changes.
Despite differing perspectives, the impact of ranking fluctuations is undeniable. Lower rankings can affect research funding, academic collaborations, and student enrolments. Addressing these concerns requires a collective effort from all stakeholders, including the administration, faculty, and student community.
Student Protests and Faculty Appointments
By November 2024, student frustrations culminated in an indefinite hunger strike demanding leadership changes. This protest was not just about one individual but reflected broader anxieties about governance and institutional direction.
In an attempt to address concerns, in mid November 2024, the administration announced key appointments, including Prof. Sherwin May Sungoh as Pro-VC of the Shillong Campus and Dr. Fameline K. Marak as Pro-VC of the Tura Campus. However, their decision to decline the roles was viewed as a signal of discontent within the academic leadership.
While student organizations voiced strong opposition to existing governance structures, the administration maintains that policy decisions require procedural adherence and cannot be dictated solely by protest actions. The Vice-Chancellor’s temporary leave until November 29, 2024, led to the appointment of Prof. Nirmalendu Saha as Acting VC, a move seen as an interim solution rather than a long-term resolution.
Institutional Autonomy and Political Dynamics
As the situation intensified, political involvement became a key point of contention. The Voice of the People Party (VPP) attempted to mediate between stakeholders, but the NEHU Students’ Union (NEHUSU) strongly opposed political interference in university affairs.
This raises a critical question for Indian higher education institutions: how to balance institutional autonomy with external support? Whether Indian universities can be insulated from excessive political interference while ensuring accountability. NEHU’s current predicament serves as a microcosm of this national debate – how much institutional autonomy is necessary for universities to flourish, and where does legitimate oversight become an impediment to growth?
While political engagement can sometimes be necessary for reforms, excessive involvement can risk undermining academic freedom. NEHU’s crisis underscores the need for clear boundaries in university governance to safeguard independent decision-making.
Government Response and Calls for Stability
By February 2025, demands for Prof. Shukla’s removal reached the highest levels of government. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Minister of State for Education Sukanta Majumdar stated that any action must adhere to legal and statutory provisions governing central universities.
This legal stance, while procedurally sound, has prolonged uncertainty at NEHU. The Non-Teaching Staff Association (NEHUNSA) has urged the Education Ministry to grant special statutory powers to the Acting VC to restore institutional stability. Meanwhile, Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma has engaged with central authorities to seek a resolution.
The administration maintains that governance reforms take time and must be implemented within legal frameworks. However, students and faculty continue to express concerns over delays, emphasizing the urgent need for decisive leadership.
A Call for Institutional Reforms
On March 22, 2025, Prof. Shukla addressed faculty members, calling for collective efforts to stabilize the university. He acknowledged delays in Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions attributing to prolonged unrest and assured that they would be resolved soon. However, trust in leadership remains fragile, and calls for governance reforms persist.
The administration asserts that structural improvements and procedural adherence are necessary for long-term stability. However, critics argue that unless trust is restored through inclusive decision-making, institutional credibility will continue to suffer.
Lessons from NEHU: The Need for Structural Reforms
NEHU’s challenges are not just about one university or one administrator; they reflect larger issues within Indian higher education.
1. Decentralized Governance:Universities must reduce over-centralization and promote collective decision-making, ensuring that faculty and students have a greater voice. The ability of one individual to disrupt an entire institution’s functioning highlights the dangers of excessive centralization. Universities must strengthen collective decision-making processes, involving faculty and students in governance. Decision-making processes must become more inclusive and consultative, with clear timelines for faculty promotions, research funding allocations, and student welfare initiatives.
2. Transparent Leadership:Institutional appointments and promotions should be more transparent to build confidence within the academic community. The NEHU crisis underscores the need for greater transparency in university administration. Clear, accountable leadership structures are essential.
3. Autonomy vs. Political Influence:Universities must safeguard their academic independence while engaging constructively with policymakers. While external interventions can be well-intentioned, they should not compromise institutional independence.
4. Student-Centric Policies:Decision-making must prioritize student welfare, ensuring that academic progress is not disrupted. The NEHU administration must proactively engage with students, address their concerns, and invest in improving infrastructure. Ultimately, universities exist for students. When governance collapses, students are the primary victims. A responsive administration that prioritizes student welfare is crucial.
5. Reinvigorating Faculty Engagement: A structured road-map for faculty development, including better funding mechanisms, research incentives, and international collaborations, must be a priority.
6. A Visionary Leadership Model:The Vice-Chancellor’s office must move beyond crisis management and articulate a long-term strategic vision.
Can NEHU Rebuild Itself?
Yes! NEHU’s challenges are not insurmountable. Institutions are not built in a day, nor do they decline overnight. Despite current challenges, NEHU has the potential to restore its legacy. However, this requires a commitment to governance reforms, improved administrative accountability, and greater stakeholder engagement. Political interference at all levels must be minimized, and faculty participation must be strengthened in decision-making.
Above all, NEHU must reaffirm its core mission: education with academic excellence. The true measure of a university is not just in its rankings, but in its ability to inspire learning, foster research, and serve its students. A university is not just its buildings, rankings, its administration, or its politics – it is its students and their aspirations, faculty, and the knowledge it generates. If NEHU does not reclaim its academic integrity, its decline will serve as a grim reminder of what happens when governance fails in higher education.
NEHU stands at a defining moment – not just for its own revival, but for the future of education in the Northeast and India. With the right reforms, it can rise again, rekindling hope and excellence. But the cost of inaction will not be borne by its leaders – it will be carried by an entire generation left without direction, dreams fading in the absence of vision.
(Bijoy A. Sangma is a development professional, policy analyst, an advocate, commentator on governance, economic policies, social justice and religious freedom. Currently a PhD scholar, he has previously worked with national and international organizations in leadership roles, contributing to thought leadership in public policy and social transformation. e-mail: [email protected])