Transition in A&N Island’s Higher Education Framework Pushes Students into Academic Uncertainty

By
Debkumar Bhadra

The decision to establish the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Institute of Higher Learning (NSCBIHL) as a deemed-to-be university marks a defining moment for higher education in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. For decades, the islands have aspired to build a locally administered university ecosystem. In principle, the creation of a university within the islands is a welcome and long-awaited step toward academic autonomy and regional development. However, the manner and timing of its implementation have pushed the island's students into academic uncertainty that merits thoughtful consideration rather than outright dismissal.

The transformation from affiliation under Pondicherry University (a Central University) to a newly constituted Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Institute of Higher Learning (NSCBIHL), a deemed-to-be university represents a fundamental shift in the island's academic landscape. Establishing a university from scratch is not merely a matter of notification. It is a complex exercise requiring careful planning, institutional preparedness and stakeholder consultation culminating into building academic credibility, stabilising administrative systems, ensuring faculty strength, and developing robust regulatory and accreditation structures. These processes take time and the early phase of any new institution is inevitably accompanied by teething challenges.

Higher education institutions in the islands have historically faced instability in matters of affiliation. Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkeeya Mahavidyalaya (JNRM) was once affiliated with Panjab University before transitioning to Pondicherry University. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Technology (DBRAIT) moved across multiple affiliating bodies from the Board of Technical Education (BTE), Delhi, to the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education (MSBTE) and eventually to Pondicherry University, only to encounter further complications, including the revocation of affiliation at one stage. These repeated disruptions have historically affected academic continuity, examination processes, curriculum stability and the overall confidence of students across the islands.

The cumulative experience of such uncertainties may have contributed to the policy thinking that a locally administered university for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands could provide stability and greater autonomy in the long run. However, with limited time remaining for the current batch (2025–26), anxiety among students is inevitable. While some vested interests may attempt to exploit the prevailing uncertainty, the situation itself could have been anticipated and mitigated through better planning and stakeholder consultation. A carefully phased implementation would have provided both the authorities and prospective students adequate time to understand and adapt to the new framework, ensuring a smoother transition.

A deemed-to-be university for the islands could indeed address many longstanding challenges, such as delays in examinations and results, lack of region-specific curricula and dependence on distant affiliating bodies. Such a university has the potential to strengthen academic autonomy, enhance timely resolution of grievance and promote research and innovation tailored to suit the local needs. However, the merit of this vision does not diminish the importance and need for a careful and phased implementation.

The present controversy does not arise from opposition to the establishment of a deemed-to-be university. Rather, it stems from the manner and timing of its implementation, particularly its application to current batch of students who secured admission through All India Quota counselling with the understanding that ANIIMS was affiliated to Pondicherry University, a Central University. These students exercised their choice based on that academic framework, institutional reputation and degree granting authority. Altering this affiliation months after admission effectively changes the terms under which they made their decision. Given a fair and informed choice at the outset, many of these students might have opted for other institutions based on their preferences. It is therefore unsurprising that such All India Quota students feel misled and disadvantaged by the retrospective, legally questionable mid-session change. Their concerns are not directed against institutional progress but against the perceived inequity and unilateral alteration of academic conditions after admission.

In recent weeks, several voices, especially across social media have emerged opposing the very establishment of the deemed university. Some of these interventions appear to be influenced by outfits with political interests. While such engagement is part of a democratic setup, it risks overshadowing the core issue. The students at the heart of this matter are not demanding a rollback of the deemed university. Their request is that they should have been consulted before their academic pathway was shifted from a Central University to a newly established deemed-to-be university. They seek only that the transition be applied prospectively, allowing future students to make informed choices while protecting the academic certainty of those already enrolled.

A brief comparison underscores the importance of timing. Central Universities, established by parliamentary statute offer institutional permanence and credibility in accreditation and ranking. Deemed-to-be universities, while enjoying academic autonomy, derive their status through regulatory recognition and require time to build comparable credibility and stability. A newly established deemed university inevitably needs a gestation period to develop its academic and administrative reputation. Introducing a transition mid-course, without adequate preparation or consultation, risks placing students in a position of uncertainty regarding their academic future and career prospects.

From both administrative and legal perspectives, students admitted under an existing university framework possess a legitimate expectation to complete their education under the same arrangement. Altering that framework retrospectively can lead to avoidable disputes and erode trust. Any progress that creates uncertainty among its primary stakeholders risks defeating the very purpose it seeks to achieve.

By announcing the transition to the brand-new deemed-to-be university (NSCBIHL) at the fag end of the academic session, the authorities have inadvertently triggered an avoidable controversy that risks overshadowing the pressing intent behind its creation. The resulting uncertainty has placed the future of current students under a cloud and in the process, has brought premature disrepute to an institution that is yet to take its first definitive step toward academic autonomy in the islands.

The creation of a university for the islands should have been a moment of collective pride and academic optimism. Instead, the haste surrounding its implementation has led to avoidable distress among students whose only expectation was fairness and academic certainty. Even now, a measured course correction such as extending continuity to the current batch and implementing the new system prospectively can transform the present discord into a consensus. Such an approach would not weaken the new institution, rather, it would strengthen its foundation by building trust among those it is meant to serve.

Related Reading:
👉 Beyond the Deemed to be University debate, a democratic milestone for A&N Islands