Neoliberal Peak: Endogenous Privatization and Bureaucratic Overreach in Telangana’s Collegiate Education | Adama Srinivas Reddy

In recent years, public higher education in Telangana has witnessed a troubling shift toward market-driven practices and centralized bureaucratic control, driven by endogenous privatization—the adoption of private-sector logics and practices within public institutions. This shift has blurred the lines between public and private interests, fundamentally altering the role and functioning of public colleges

The tenure of the former Commissioner of Collegiate Education in Telangana during 2018-2024 serves as a stark example of how neoliberal policies infiltrate public institutions, resulting in privatization from within. Faculty transfers, the closure of regional language courses, and extensive funding for private mentoring organizations were some of the key features of this era, which directly contradict the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020’s vision for equity, access, and multilingual education.

What is Endogenous Privatization?

Privatization in education can take two forms: exogenous and endogenous.
Exogenous Privatization refers to the direct involvement of private actors in public education through mechanisms like private schools, public-private partnerships (PPPs), or outsourcing services (Ball, 2007). It is visible and external, often presented as a solution to the state’s perceived inefficiencies.
Endogenous Privatization, on the other hand, occurs within public institutions when they begin to adopt private sector practices, such as performance metrics, competition, branding, and profit-oriented strategies (Ball, 2012). Instead of focusing on academic growth and equity, these institutions shift their priorities toward market-like behaviours treating education as a commodity rather than a public good.

The current trends in Telangana’s higher education system illustrate how endogenous privatization is reshaping public institutions into entities that prioritize visibility, rankings, and branding over their core academic and social missions.

Endogenous Privatization in Action

1. Public Funds Diverted to Private Mentoring Organizations

One of the clearest examples of endogenous privatization was the extensive funding of private mentoring organizations, such as the Institute of Academic Excellence (IAE), which conducted online orientation programs for faculty to prepare for NAAC accreditation and NIRF rankings. These programs were offered at exorbitant fees, despite the fact that public authorities could have easily provided them for free, if planned properly.

During this period, public institutions were systematically encouraged to participate in these paid programs, diverting substantial amounts of public money to private entities. This practice contradicted NEP 2020’s focus on building internal capacity and ensuring affordable faculty development (NEP 2020, Section 17.8).

2. Centralized Procurement at Inflated Costs

Another hallmark of endogenous privatization was the centralization of procurement through the Commissionerate office. While centralization is often justified as a cost-saving measure, in reality, procured items were priced at nearly double the market rate, with contracts awarded to specific vendors. Colleges lost their financial autonomy, and public funds were systematically drained through inflated purchases, benefiting select contractors rather than institutions.

3. Arbitrary Faculty Transfers and Disruption of Academic Activity

Faculty transfers and course reorganizations during this period were chaotic and lacked transparency, violating UGC workload regulations and disturbing academic schedules.

Deployment in Multiple Colleges: Faculty were often assigned to two or more colleges, spending three days at one and another three days at a different college. This fractured their responsibilities and compromised teaching quality.

Downsizing of Faculty Positions: Under the guise of course reorganization, faculty positions were downsized without regard for academic needs, creating severe shortages in key subjects.

Leadership Vacancies: Nearly three-fourths of colleges lacked permanent principals. Instead of filling these vacancies, the Commissioner appointed additional in-charge principals from the faculty, often against their will. Faculty who refused were penalized, further demoralizing the teaching community.

Closure of Telugu-Medium Courses: The most concerning decision was the winding up of Telugu-medium programs, contradicting the NEP 2020’s advocacy for multilingual education (NEP 2020, Section 4.11). This disproportionately affected rural and marginalized students, who often rely on Telugu as their primary language of instruction. By phasing out regional language programs, the administration reduced access to education and eroded local linguistic heritage, forcing students to either shift to English-medium programs or drop out.

4. Undermining Academic Cells and Depriving Teachers of Teaching Experience

Another significant consequence of neoliberal reforms was the restructuring of the Academic Cell in the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education. Once a vital wing of the State Council of Educational Research and Training, its core mission was to address challenges in higher education and provide meaningful teacher training programs. However, over time, it has been reduced to a mere administrative unit responsible for collecting data from colleges, scheduling programs, and handling routine communications.

Young faculty members, many of whom were new to the profession, were deputed to this cell for extended periods, keeping them away from classroom teaching for years. This early-career detachment from teaching led to a loss of professional commitment, as these teachers became accustomed to bureaucratic tasks rather than pedagogical responsibilities.

Moreover, since these deputed teachers came from various disciplines, their absence significantly disrupted academic programs in their respective colleges, aggravating faculty shortages and affecting student learning outcomes. Instead of recruiting additional ministerial staff for administrative tasks, faculty were misallocated, leading to a long-term deterioration of teaching standards in public colleges.

Symbolic Compliance and Performance Culture

Another striking feature of endogenous privatization is the rise of symbolic acts aimed at boosting institutional visibility rather than improving academic quality.

Calendar and Diary Unveiling Events: These events, conducted with great pomp and publicity, became routine occurrences in educational institutions. In many cases, the unveiled calendars contained nothing but dates and months, resembling marketing practices used by commercial enterprises. The question arises: What educational value do such events serve, other than enhancing the visibility of those at the helm of affairs?

Staged Co-Curricular Activities: Activities like NSS camps, field trips, seminars, and workshops were increasingly organized for documentation purposes to impress accreditation bodies like NAAC. These events existed primarily on paper, with photographs taken for records, often with minimal educational impact.

Enrollment Campaigns: Enrollment drives in feeder institutes were turned into marketing campaigns, focusing on increasing student numbers rather than providing meaningful engagement or academic support.

Such practices reflect what Shore and Wright (2015) describe as an "audit culture", where institutions prioritize documentation and rankings over actual educational outcomes.

Financial Mismanagement and Bureaucratic Overreach

Financial mismanagement and centralization were defining features of the period. Internal college funds were diverted indiscriminately, affecting essential infrastructure projects. College bank accounts were shifted from public sector banks to private banks, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.

The Commissioner’s tenure also saw a rise in court cases related to arbitrary suspensions of employees without procedural norms. Instead of fostering institutional growth, these actions demoralized faculty and eroded public trust in higher education governance.

Implications for Public Higher Education

Erosion of Institutional Autonomy: Centralized control and private sector involvement weakened the ability of public colleges to make independent decisions based on their academic needs.

Marginalization of Regional Languages: The closure of Telugu-medium courses and the emphasis on English-medium programs disproportionately affected rural students, exacerbating educational inequalities.

Commodification of Education: The increasing focus on visibility, rankings, and documentation has shifted public institutions toward a market-oriented framework.

Faculty Demoralization: Arbitrary transfers, forced additional responsibilities, and lack of transparency have left faculty members disillusioned and disengaged.

Conclusion:

The period of bureaucratic overreach and market-driven reforms in Telangana’s higher education sector is a cautionary tale of the dangers of endogenous privatization. These practices have undermined the core mission of public education, prioritizing performance metrics and visibility over genuine academic development.

To align with the true spirit of NEP 2020, there is an urgent need to restore autonomy, promote regional languages, and ensure equitable access. Public education must reclaim its core mission of critical inquiry, inclusivity, and social responsibility, resisting the corporatization of academic spaces before it is too late.

(Author: Adama Srinivas Reddy (sreevare13[at]gmail.com) teaches at the Kakatiya Government College (Autonomous), Hanumakonda, Kakatiya University, and is a Founding member of the Society for Change in Education, Telangana)

References

Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the "Right" Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education. Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.
Ministry of Education (2020). The National Education Policy 2020, Government of India.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit Culture and the Changing Role of the State. Social Anthropology.