Whose Nalanda? In the End, It Will Only Serve the Elite

The fee structure of Nalanda points out an alarming fact about how inclusive the university would be.

PM Narendra Modi at the site of the ancient Nalanda University. 

(Photo: X/@narendramodi)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the new campus of Nalanda University in Rajgir, Bihar, on 19 June. In his speech, PM Modi proclaimed, "The rebuilding of Nalanda marks the beginning of a golden era for India." His address focused prominently on words like development, renaissance, heritage, values, and a better future, evoking a sense of a golden age itself.

The inauguration of Nalanda was reminiscent of a grand gala event, capturing widespread attention and dominating the headlines. However, amidst the celebrations, crucial questions that hold immense significance for our “better future” are being brushed under the carpet.

Amidst the celebrations for an upcoming golden age, we must raise concerns about whose golden age this would represent. As DN Jha eloquently underscores in his book Ancient India, "For the upper classes, all periods in history are golden ages, but for the masses, none."

Stemming from this is a critical concern and a pressing question: Whose university would Nalanda be?

The Historic Nalanda

The history of Nalanda begins in the fifth century with its establishment during the time of Buddha and Mahavira and is closely tied with the history of Buddhism, being established as a Buddhist Mahavihara, but was also heavily influenced by contemporary political patronage. The real foundation of Nalanda, however, is attributed to Kumaragupta I of the Gupta Dynasty. Later, we see the Palas promoting Nalanda as a cultural centre.

Nalanda was a prolific centre of education, attracting students from different parts of the world. It can arguably be termed the first residential campus in the world. Education was not confined to religion here, it encompassed other fields like architecture, linguistics, medicine, astronomy and so on.

The decline of Nalanda is a contentious topic in historical debate, especially due to its connection with the rise in nationalist history. It has been popularly believed that it was Bakhtiyar Khalji who destroyed the University of Nalanda. However, works by scholars such as DR Patil, DN Jha, and RS Sharma attribute no historicity to such claims.

The Revival

It was APJ Abdul Kalam, former president and erudite scholar who first envisioned the revival of the ancient university of Nalanda. From there to the new inauguration, there have been a few years about which current times don’t speak about enough. The inauguration was a spectacle, no doubt, but it is important to highlight that the ones in the limelight have nothing significant to claim regarding the revival of the ancient university.

Significant in the race towards the establishment of Nalanda University is also the foreign support and initiatives including Singapore’s The Nalanda Proposal. In 2010, the University of Nalanda was formally established and the first batch of students enrolled from 2014.

The vision for the revival of Nalanda, according to Amartya Sen, former Chancellor of Nalanda, includes four reasons.

The first highlights the importance of and the need for a high-quality education institution in Asia. Secondly, it reflects a pan-Asian commitment, i.e., Nalanda could be of considerable value and pride to Asian countries. Third, despite disagreements and different politico-economic systems, Nalanda could be a platform for collaboration between Asian countries. Finally, Bihar which is relatively a backward part of India, would gain much with the establishment of such a university in the state.

All these factors illustrate a university committed to providing quality and inclusive education, significantly contributing to the country's growth. However, its autonomy has been surrounded by controversies since the Modi government took office.

Nalanda University has faced challenges to its autonomy twice within the short span of ten years since academic operations began in 2014. Two successive Chancellors quit, citing political interference and the erosion of the university’s autonomy.

Amartya Sen, renowned economist and founding Chancellor of the university, withdrew his candidacy for a second term due to delays in the approval of his name. A year after this incident, the second Chancellor, George Yeo (former foreign minister of Singapore), also quit, claiming he was not notified about changes to the governing body.

Both resignations raise questions about the government’s intentions regarding how they want to present the new Nalanda University to India and the world.

Now coming to the core question — the university with all the pomp and glory around it, in the end, would be whose?

Whose Nalanda?

A glimpse through the current fee structure of just the MA programs on the university website would reveal the gloomy reality that is in stark opposition to the glittering promises of a “better future.”

The fee structure of Nalanda University points out an alarming fact about how inclusive the university would be. The question is, who can afford Nalanda?

The semester fee alone at Nalanda University for an MA course is around Rs 42,500. For one year, the total fees would be Rs 73,000, summing up to a grand total of Rs 1,34,000.

Now coming to the residence and meal charges, for a twin-sharing room, the residence charges are Rs 22,500 per semester (four-and-a-half months) with an additional charge of Rs 22,450 for the mess bill.  

In contrast, at a university like JNU, the semester fee is around Rs 275, with hostel rent and mess charges summing up to not more than Rs 3,000-4,000 a month. JNU is again a ground where we have witnessed a massive movement against fee hikes when the administration attempted the same. JNU has its walls adorned with beautiful graffiti from the fee hike movement. One such graffiti says, "I am here, I am queer, I can’t afford ₹60,000 a year."

The difference between JNU and Nalanda is not merely about transforming from an allegedly "anti-national" institution to a symbol of national pride; it is about discrimination — blatant, naked discrimination against the needs of the poor, the deserving, and the underrepresented. With a fee structure this high, the university would filter out its students, allowing only the rich and the privileged to enjoy what should ideally be accessible to everyone.

Along with class, aspects of caste and gender come into play. With elites dominating what is supposed to be an institution of high-quality education, the spectres of capitalism would haunt us, disproportionately benefiting one end of the social spectrum while marginalising the other.

Now, keeping aside the question of who can afford this, there is also another question: what is happening to the promise of cheap and better education for all? Has education completely turned into a profit enterprise?

With the New Education Policy blatantly advocating for the commercialisation of education, it is no wonder that education in the current period is marketed as a luxury item up for sale rather than a fundamental right.

With a visible increase in the number of private universities and the setting up of foreign university campuses in the country, higher education is moving towards the principles of neo-liberal policies, forgetting that quality education is, and should be, the responsibility of the state.

This, along with the series of paper leaks our country saw in the last 15 days, raises questions about the intent and direction that the ruling disposition is taking with respect to education.