NITI Aayog’s Roadmap to Globalise Indian Higher Education: From Sending Students Abroad to Building a ‘Study in India’ Hub

India has spent decades exporting talent, sending millions of students overseas and watching top faculty and researchers build careers elsewhere. Now, a new NITI Aayog report, released in December 2025, argues that the next phase of India’s higher-education story must be about two-way flows: attracting international students and faculty, scaling cross-border research, and building globally networked campuses, without losing India’s cultural and intellectual identity.

The document, Internationalisation of Higher Education in India: Prospects, Potential and Policy Recommendations (Dec 2025) was prepared by NITI Aayog’s Education Division with a consortium led by IIT Madras, and it is explicitly framed as an academic/policy research output, not a binding policy statement. At the centre of the report is a concrete implementation blueprint: 5 thematic pillars, 22 policy recommendations, 76 action pathways, and 125 performance indicators an attempt to convert “internationalisation” from rhetoric into measurable delivery.

What the report means by “internationalisation” (it’s broader than foreign students) 

NITI Aayog’s framing treats internationalisation as a full-spectrum redesign of how Indian universities teach, research, partner, and present themselves globally. The report explicitly includes internationalisation- at-home, student/faculty mobility, international research collaborations, international student offices, offshore and onshore campuses, and Indian knowledge systems and intercultural fluency as part of the operating model.

This matters because India’s global footprint is not only an admissions challenge; it is also a systems challenge like visa processes, degree equivalence, credit transfer, campus support, safety, and the “soft infrastructure” that makes international learners and faculty feel welcome.

The targets: a push toward global medians by 2047

To create urgency, the report introduces time-bound targets for international student presence. It points to a goal of raising India’s “international student mobility intensity” to 1.0% by 2047, translating into roughly 8 lakh inbound international students (and about 22 lakh total international enrolments when accounting for multiple cohorts). The report’s underlying message is clear: India cannot become a credible global education hub without scaling inbound mobility significantly—and doing so requires coordinated action across education, home affairs, external affairs, and state governments. 

At-a-glance: the flagship proposals (and the “brands” the report wants India to build)

Proposal “brand” (as named in the report)	What it aims to do	Why it matters
Global Higher Education Hubs	Build education-led innovation clusters across regions	Moves internationalisation beyond a few metros and a few elite institutions
GIFT IFSC Education Zone	Make GIFT City a model international education hub	Creates a regulatory and infrastructure sandbox for global campuses
Tagore Framework	A multilateral mobility framework (ASEAN/BIMSTEC/BRICS etc.)	Scales exchanges like Erasmus- style regional systems
Bharat Vidya Kosh	Diaspora-led, government- matched research sovereign impact fund	Creates long-horizon R&D financing and global collaboration capacity
Vishwa Bandhu Scholarship and Fellowship	Flagship inbound scholarships + global talent fellowships	Competes with Fulbright/Chevening/DAAD- style signalling
Bharat Vidya Manthan	Annual international higher education and research conference	A “Davos-like” convening for education diplomacy and partnerships
Study in India (revamp)	One-stop solution for international applicants and support	Converts interest into conversions through frictionless onboarding

Each element above is drawn from the report’s policy recommendations

and implementation roadmaps.

Pillar 1: Strategy—build a national operating system, not scattered pilots

The report’s first move is to treat internationalisation as a whole-of- government, whole-of-system programme, not a set of disconnected MoUs. It proposes a comprehensive national strategy, including coordination mechanisms and measurable monitoring. A key strategy lever is the creation of Global Higher Education Hubs—regional ecosystems designed around STEAM disciplines and anchored in collaboration among universities, industry, government and society. This can be also criticised that the recommendations actually ignore the non-STEM disciplines, which in effect may also include management, law, communication, design, languages. The proposal explicitly suggests replicating hub models (including the “GIFT City approach”), creating incentives for high-potential Indian and international universities, and aligning hubs with national missions such as Digital India and Startup India. There are critics who explain with facts how the GIFT City of Gandhinagar has not been a success to boast

about.

The intent is not just student recruitment. These hubs are positioned as education-led innovation ecosystems that drive regional economic transformation and global reputation—i.e., internationalisation as industrial strategy, not only education policy.

Pillar 2: Regulation—reduce friction for people, programmes, and campuses

If strategy sets direction, regulation determines whether anything moves at speed. The report’s regulatory proposals focus on three bottlenecks:

1) Mobility permissions and administrative simplification

It calls for streamlined administrative procedures to enable smoother movement of students, faculty and researchers.

2) International branch campuses and eligibility rules

The report pushes for broadening eligibility and simplifying approval processes to make India a more competitive destination for foreign universities—moving beyond narrow filters and enabling faster decision cycles.

3) Co-located and “embedded” campus models

Instead of waiting only for standalone foreign campuses, the report proposes integrated/co-located campuses within Indian institutions—where foreign HEIs can plug into Indian public/private campuses through shared infrastructure and academic delivery. And to create a visible “proof-of-concept zone,” it recommends establishing GIFT IFSC as a model international education hub, expanding academic disciplines and aligning the ecosystem for global participation.

Finally, it argues that incentives matter only if rankings and reputational systems reward the right behaviours—hence the recommendation to revise NIRF to include internationalisation metrics aligned with NEP 2020.

Pillar 3: Mobility at scale—“Tagore Framework” for regional exchanges

Rather than only bilateral exchange MoUs (which often remain symbolic), the report advocates a multilateral architecture an Erasmus- like system adapted for regions such as ASEAN, BIMSTEC, or BRICS.

It even proposes a cultural-diplomacy identity for it: the “Tagore Framework,” taking into consideration the early internationalization of art and culture by Vishwabharati University at Shantiniketan, founded by the Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore.

The strategic subtext: India’s comparative advantage may lie in building Global South academic corridors that are structured, credit-recognised, and easier to navigate than today’s patchwork.

Pillar 4: Finance—new money, smarter instruments, and research-linked internationalisation

The report’s financing logic is blunt: internationalisation needs long- horizon funding, and India’s diaspora is an underutilised strategic asset. Bharat Vidya Kosh: a diaspora-led research sovereign impact fund. It proposes a National Research Sovereign Wealth Impact Fund—Bharat Vidya Kosh—a diaspora-led, government-matched trust-style vehicle to finance research, innovation and capacity-building. The model includes a proposed USD 10 billion corpus, split between diaspora/philanthropy and a government match.

Vishwa Bandhu Scholarship and Fellowship: prestige as policy To compete in global talent markets, the report recommends a flagship scholarship for international master’s students—Vishwa Bandhu Scholarship—modelled after global benchmarks. For researchers and faculty (especially diaspora), it proposes the Vishwa Bandhu Fellowship, designed to be globally competitive and administratively streamlined.

Erasmus Mundus, Ford Foundation Fellowships, Commonwealth Fellowships and many more are there as global illustrations of similar initiatives. Policy Recommendation 12: use existing global research money—systematically. A quieter but highly operational recommendation urges leading Indian central and state public universities to proactively tap bilateral and multilateral joint research funding programmes—by building internal capacity to access and manage such funds and by creating global consortia.

Pillar 5: Branding, communication and outreach—treat education as diplomacy

NITI Aayog’s report is unusually explicit that “internationalisation” is also a market-building exercise—with differentiated messaging for different countries.

It recommends developing country- and region-specific outreach strategies (BCO) based on Indian strengths, employer demand, diaspora influence, and trust signals.. Two notable “soft power” levers stand out: Indian Alumni Ambassador Network (“Bharat ki AAN”) to build credibility, mentoring pathways, and recruitment pull in target markets.

An annual flagship convening—Bharat Vidya Manthan—to position India as a global meeting point for higher education and research partnerships. The report also proposes a structured push for Global Academic and Research Exchange Programmes, including outward mobility schemes and institutional partnership engines, so exchanges become repeatable programmes rather than ad hoc arrangements.

And finally, it calls for revamping “Study in India” into a one-stop solution—reducing friction from discovery to application to onboarding.

Pillar 6: Curriculum and culture—internationalise “at home,” keep India’s intellectual signature

A key theme is that India should not chase global norms by flattening its identity. The report calls for building globally connected but culturally grounded institutions—linking internationalisation to India’s civilisational and knowledge traditions.

This shows up in three practical recommendations:

1. Internationalisation at home through curriculum redesign and campus practices (including language and cultural preparedness).
2. Build intercultural and foreign-language competence via national missions and institutional mechanisms.
3. Integrate global approaches with Indian philosophy and IKS, while promoting research addressing India’s socioeconomic challenges and giving global visibility to Indian knowledge systems across 

STEM and non-STEM.

The “student experience” shifts towards safety, housing, counselling, and belonging. One of the most implementable recommendations is also one of the most consequential: treat international students as a serious constituency with baseline global expectations.

The report recommends that universities adopt global standards for housing, campus safety, academic support, counselling, and cultural orientation, plus language assistance and mentorship to enable integration. This is not cosmetic. In global higher education, student satisfaction and word-of-mouth are major recruitment engines; without credible student experience, branding campaigns simply leak conversions. One of the biggest challenges for foreign students coming to India has been the hostile situation some of them have faced due to racism and due to public perception of the nations from which  foreign students have come.

The report’s strength is its operational clarity—named programmes, named actors, and measurable indicators. But three “watch areas” follow from the proposals themselves:

1. Coordination risk: many recommendations require tight synchronisation across ministries and states (especially visas, campus approvals, and safety standards).
2. Reputation and quality assurance: faster approvals and hub models will only work if quality signals remain credible.
3. Delivery capacity inside universities: several proposals assume capable International Relations Offices, sponsored research offices, and student services systems—capacities that vary widely today.

NITI Aayog’s report does not argue for internationalisation as a fashionable add-on. It frames it as a strategic necessity tied to Viksit Bharat 2047, backed by a full-stack programme architecture—from hubs and regulations to scholarships, diaspora financing, and student experience.

If implemented seriously, the proposals would reposition India from a country primarily known for outbound mobility to one that also hosts, convenes, and co-creates global higher education on India’s terms, with India’s identity intact. However, looking at the pace of implementation of NEP 2020, there are natural questions on the pace and extent of the limitations of these apparently clearly stated goals and perspectives by Niti Ayog.

The author is the Chief Mentor of Edinbox and works as a Director with the Techno India group of Kolkata, along with being the Principal Adviser of the Kolkata based university of the group.