Dr. Arshed Iqbal Dar
India’s higher education system aspires to global excellence, yet inside many of its universities and colleges, a quieter reality persists: decisions are delayed, responsibilities are deflected, and accountability is diffused. The culture of “passing the buck” has become so routine that it is no longer seen as a failure—it is treated as procedure. This is not a trivial administrative flaw. It is a systemic weakness that undermines institutional credibility and, more critically, compromises student outcomes. At the heart of the problem lies the structure of governance itself. Indian higher education institutions operate through layered systems of committees, departments and administrative hierarchies. These are designed to promote collective decision-making. In practice, they often produce the opposite: collective evasion of responsibility. When everyone is involved, no one is accountable. Consider the everyday realities across campuses: faculty appointments that take months to finalise, files that circulate endlessly between offices and student placement initiatives that stall without clear ownership. Each delay is explained away as a procedural necessity. Yet, cumulatively, these delays reveal something deeper—an institutional culture where inaction carries no cost.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 recognises many of these structural weaknesses. It calls for improved governance, institutional autonomy, and accountability frameworks. However, policy intent alone cannot dismantle entrenched behavioural norms. Without a corresponding shift in institutional culture, reforms risk being reduced to paperwork—ironically reinforcing thievery inertia they seek to eliminate. A key driver of this inertia is the diffusion of responsibility inherent in large organisations. When tasks are distributed across multiple actors without clearly defined ownership, action slows down. But structural ambiguity is only part of the story. Equally important is the climate within institutions. Many faculty members—particularly those on contractual appointments—operate under conditions of uncertainty.
Delayed salaries, limited job security, and exclusion from decision-making processes create an environment where taking initiative feels risky. In such settings, silence becomes a rational strategy. This is where the blame game finds fertile ground: not in incompetence, but in caution. Over time, responsibility avoidance is rationalised. The language of bureaucracy—“under process”, “pending approval”, “awaiting clarification”—becomes a shield. It allows individuals and departments to appear compliant while remaining disengaged. What begins as episodic hesitation evolves into a deeply embedded institutional norm. The consequences are severe. First, administrative inefficiency becomes systemic. Decisions that should take days stretch into weeks or months, affecting everything from curriculum delivery to infrastructure development. Second, trust erodes. Faculty lose faith in administration, students lose confidence in institutions, and administrators themselves become trapped in a cycle of mutual suspicion. Trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild—and without it, no institution can function effectively. Third, and most critically, students suffer.
“While NEP 2020 provides a roadmap for structural reform, its success depends on a fundamental shift in institutional culture. For Indian universities to achieve global excellence, they must move beyond “buck-passing” and embrace genuine accountability. The true challenge is no longer the need for reform, but the willingness of institutions to take ownership of it.”
Delayed placements, uneven teaching quality due to faculty shortages, and unresponsive grievance systems directly affect their academic and professional trajectories. At a time when India is positioning itself as a knowledge economy, such institutional failures are not just unfortunate—they are unacceptable. Why does this persist despite repeated reform efforts? One uncomfortable answer lies in incentive structures. Institutions often reward what is easily measurable—research publications, rankings, and formal compliance—while expecting equal commitment to teaching quality, mentorship, and administrative efficiency. The result is predictable: individuals prioritise what is rewarded and neglect what is not.In this environment, accountability becomes selective. If India is serious about transforming its higher education landscape, it must confront this culture directly. Incremental adjustments will not suffice; what is needed is a decisive shift in both governance and mindset.
Leadership must take the lead. Institutional heads—principals, vice-chancellors, and directors—must move beyond symbolic authority and actively model accountability. This means taking ownership of delays, ensuring transparency in decision-making, and establishing consequences for inaction. Accountability cannot be delegated; it must be demonstrated. Structural clarity is equally essential. Roles and responsibilities must be explicitly defined, particularly within committees that often function as sites of delay rather than decision-making. Every process should have a clearly identifiable point of responsibility. Without this, even thebest-designed systems will falter.
Technology offers a practical pathway forward. Digital workflow systems that track file movement, assign responsibility, and flag delays can significantly reduce ambiguity. When actions—and inactions—are visible, accountability becomes enforceable. Several government sectors have already adopted such systems with measurable success; higher education cannot afford to lag behind. Faculty welfare must also be prioritised. It is unrealistic to expect accountability from individuals who feel undervalued and insecure. Timely salaries, fair contracts, and inclusion in institutional governance are not concessions—they are prerequisites for meaningful engagement. Equally, student voices must be integrated into accountability frameworks. Feedback mechanisms should not be ceremonial exercises but active tools for institutional improvement. Closing the loop between feedback and action is essential if institutions are to regain credibility. Ultimately, the blame game in higher education is not about individual failure—it is about systemic design. But recognising this should not become another excuse for inaction.
The promise of NEP 2020 lies not just in structural reform, but in cultural transformation. If institutions continue to treat accountability as optional, no policy—however well-conceived—will deliver meaningful change. India’s universities cannot aspire to global standards while tolerating local dysfunctions. Ending the culture of buck-passing is not merely an administrative necessity; it is an educational imperative. The question is no longer whether reform is needed. It is whether institutions are willing to take responsibility for it.
(The author is Assistant Professor at the Department of Zoology, Government Degree College Pattan, Department of Higher Education, Jammu & Kashmir. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
