Introduction
Education lies at the heart of every society’s moral and intellectual progress, and universities stand as its highest temples of learning, shaping citizens, generating ideas, and nurturing hope. In Jammu and Kashmir’s border district of Rajouri, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University (BGSBU) was envisioned as precisely such an institution: a beacon of opportunity for a region historically deprived of access to quality higher education. Yet today, it finds itself at the centre of an intensifying controversy marked by administrative paralysis, faculty shortages, and contested narratives of reform and decline. What began as an operational struggle over unfilled posts and delayed examinations has evolved into a deeper crisis, one that raises profound questions about governance, accountability, and the fragility of higher education in India’s peripheral regions.
Institutional Crisis and Competing Narratives
Universities are more than centres of instruction; they shape the moral and intellectual trajectory of societies. Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University (BGSBU), a public institution located in Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir, was established to play precisely this transformative role in a region historically underserved by higher-education infrastructure. Yet, in recent months, the university has become the focus of intensifying scrutiny over allegations of administrative inertia, persistent faculty shortages, and eroding academic quality. What began as administrative bottlenecks, vacancies, examination delays, and sporadic strikes has deepened into a wider contest over institutional identity, governance priorities, and the state’s role in sustaining higher education in a geographically and politically sensitive region.
BGSBU was established under the Jammu & Kashmir Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University Act, 2002, with its statutory seat in Rajouri. The Act defines the university’s mission as advancing scientific and technical education tailored to the developmental needs of the Pir Panjal region, an ambition reflecting the state’s commitment to extending higher education to a border district long excluded from mainstream academic networks.
However, the institution now faces an acute human-resource crisis. Reports suggest that nearly 60 percent of faculty positions remain vacant, including all 22 professorships. This deficit places unsustainable teaching and administrative burdens on junior faculty, constrains research productivity, and narrows course offerings. According to data published by Greater Kashmir, 60.4 percent of sanctioned teaching posts lie unfilled, severely undermining the university’s academic capacity.
The administration has countered what it calls “misleading narratives,” pointing to recent infrastructural upgrades, academic diversification, and preparations for accreditation. In alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, BGSBU has launched 27 new undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, created six new departments, and introduced four-year undergraduate degrees with multiple entry and exit options. Emerging disciplines such as Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Tourism, and Management have been added across diploma, UG, PG, and PhD levels, an effort the administration cites as evidence of reform.
Nonetheless, unrest within the university community has persisted. The suspension of a faculty member without a proper show-cause notice triggered a hunger strike by a section of teachers. Students have alleged irregularities in the handling of scholarship funds, and there have been protests over delays and opacity in the subsequent inquiry. Further tensions arose when the former Registrar, accused of involvement in the scholarship issue, was reportedly retained on campus in an official capacity despite prior assurances of suspension pending investigation.
The situation escalated when opposition political leaders publicly described the university as a site of “gross administrative failure” and faculty exploitation. In response, the university issued detailed statements rejecting such characterisations and emphasising its ongoing “institutional reforms,” including readiness exercises for NAAC accreditation and campus modernisation initiatives.
As a border-district university in Jammu and Kashmir, BGSBU carries symbolic significance that far exceeds its enrolment numbers. Its challenges are interpreted not merely as campus-specific failures but as indicators of the state’s broader ability to deliver equitable educational development. In such contexts, prolonged faculty vacancies exert disproportionate effects, distorting student-teacher ratios, narrowing curricular breadth, weakening research supervision, and diminishing student support, all key indicators assessed in external accreditation frameworks.
In keeping with its regional mandate, BGSBU has also sought to preserve and promote the cultural and linguistic heritage of the Pir Panjal region. It has established a Centre for Research in Gojri, Pahari, and Kashmiri Languages and introduced degree programmes in these disciplines. These initiatives acknowledge linguistic diversity as both a pedagogical and identity resource, positioning the university as a custodian of local knowledge systems often marginalised in national academia. Concurrently, the university has embraced digital governance through the implementation of the Samarth ERP system, integrating admissions, examinations, and student services into a unified online platform. This digital transition mirrors broader reforms in Indian higher education aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency, and administrative accountability.
Taken together, these intersecting claims and counterclaims, of crisis and reform, neglect and renewal, reveal the complex structural predicament confronting BGSBU. The university’s struggle is not simply administrative; it reflects a wider challenge within Indian public higher education, where institutions are expected to uphold quality, equity, and regulatory compliance amid financial constraints, bureaucratic inertia, and politically sensitive environments.
Regulatory and Accreditation Perspective
It is important to recognise that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018 establish the minimum qualifications and appointment norms for teachers and academic staff in Indian universities. These regulations are intended to ensure both academic integrity and institutional stability by discouraging excessive reliance on ad hoc or contractual appointments and by promoting the maintenance of a balanced and permanent teaching cadre across the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professors. When such positions remain unfilled over extended periods, as observed in BGSBU, the resulting vacancy backlog creates not only an operational strain but also a potential compliance and quality risk, as the institution falls short of the regulatory benchmarks required for accreditation and recognition.
In parallel, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) evaluates universities on a broad spectrum of indicators, including student–teacher ratios, governance structures, leadership effectiveness, and the efficiency of academic and administrative management. Prolonged vacancies and the prevalence of “acting” or temporary appointments can adversely affect the university’s performance across these dimensions. Over time, such conditions may generate a self-reinforcing cycle in which weaker accreditation grades diminish institutional prestige and visibility, thereby constraining recruitment and resource inflows. For BGSBU, this creates a complex challenge: sustaining academic credibility and institutional legitimacy amid persistent faculty shortages and governance uncertainties, while remaining accountable to national regulatory frameworks that emphasise quality assurance and institutional excellence.
Larger Contextual Implications
First, the BGSBU moment underscores the fragility of higher-education ecosystems outside core urban corridors. If a statutorily established state university in a border district can see vacancies reach the order of half or more of sanctioned positions, it reveals a national vulnerability, i.e., equitable access to quality higher education is still mediated by geography.
Second, it illustrates the tension between autonomy and accountability. Universities require room to plan multi-year recruitment, build departments methodically, and craft curricula responsive to regional economies (tourism, renewable energy, and logistics). Yet they also need rigorous oversight that flags drift early.
Third, it stresses that quality assurance is not a paperwork event. In fact, NAAC and similar processes work when they are institutionalised as continuous improvement: staffing dashboards, academic audits, student feedback loops, and transparent publication of key indicators.
Finally, BGSBU shows that public communication is itself a governance function. In conflict-adjacent and politically charged environments, silence cedes the field to rumor. Awareness and frequent updates on recruitment status, accreditation timelines, and performance targets help rebuild trust.
Key Policy Gaps
The key gap across these controversies is one of accountability and institutional transparency, especially in appointment, governance, and redressal processes. Specifically, the gap has several facets:
Lack of clarity in appointment/filling up key roles must be addressed. With so many sanctioned posts lying vacant, there’s a huge disconnect between what is planned/approved and what is executed. Full professorships remain unfilled due to systemic obstacles such as budgetary constraints, recruitment delays, and policy bottlenecks that have collectively created a significant faculty shortfall.
Weak procedural transparency also poses significant gauntlets. In suspension cases, or cases of alleged wrongdoing (like the scholarship scam), the procedures followed, the timelines, who is investigating, and when findings will be made public are often vague or inconsistently communicated. This breeds mistrust among faculty, students, and other stakeholders.
Uneven implementation of disciplinary or corrective measures must be rectified. Even where there is acknowledgement of problems (e.g. ex-Registrar accused in the scam, or the need to fill vacant posts), the follow-through often seems slow or partial. The fact that the individual accused in the scholarship issue is still present in some official capacity adds to this perception.
Strain on junior faculty and administration should be regularly monitored. With senior faculty posts vacant, junior faculty are being overburdened. This affects teaching quality, mentorship, research productivity, and ultimately student outcomes. Yet the university’s current responses do not appear to address this workload or provide mitigation.
Combined, these issues lead to a breakdown in trust between university authorities and its internal stakeholders (faculty, staff, students). Without trust, even well-intentioned reforms risk being seen as cosmetic rather than substantive.
Way Forward
To bridge this accountability-transparency gap, several steps should be considered. These are meant to be practical, and many could be instituted relatively quickly if there is administrative will and oversight.
There is an urgent need to establish a clear public dashboard of vacancies, recruitments, and status updates. The university could publish monthly or quarterly reports detailing how many sanctioned posts exist, how many are filled, how many are in process, and expected timelines for filling them. This would pressure delays to be accounted for and reduce speculation.
Streamlining recruitment processes by identifying and removing bureaucratic bottlenecks is extremely warranted. For instance, are there delays in approval from higher authorities for new posts? Is the budget not being released on time? Are the advertisement and selection norms too slow? A task force could map out the end-to-end process for recruitment and identify where delays happen, then recommend process improvements (e.g. digitalisation of forms, setting fixed deadlines, etc.).
There has to be procedural fairness and communication in disciplinary actions, which should be conducted expeditiously. Whenever suspension or other measures are taken, there must be clear, written communication of the reasons, the show-cause notice, the process and timelines for inquiry, and the rights of the accused to respond. Additionally, ensure that investigative bodies are independent and that their findings are shared (in redacted form where necessary) so the community knows what has been done.
Furthermore, interim support systems for overburdened faculty should be put in place so that, until the seniors are recruited, junior faculty need official relief. This could include hiring visiting professors, adjuncts, or temporary contracts, which will reduce non-teaching workloads. Otherwise, the quality of teaching, research, and student mentoring will suffer.
It is also important to strengthen student and faculty grievance redressal mechanisms. Make sure there are multiple channels (student unions, faculty associations, ombudsman, etc.) where complaints can be lodged, and make sure follow-ups are transparent, which could also entail what the complaint was, who is looking into it, what the status is, and what the resolution is. Publicising reports of grievances and resolutions will help rebuild trust.
Finally, external oversight or audit should also be considered as an alternative option for efficient regulation, which implies having an external audit of recruitment, appointments, financial use (including scholarships), and disciplinary processes can help ensure that institutional practices are accountable. State higher education authorities, or independent bodies, could be engaged for this purpose, so that the university is not simply policing itself.
Conclusion
The turmoil at Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University is not an isolated administrative failure but a mirror reflecting the systemic fragilities of India’s public higher-education landscape, particularly in regions beyond the metropolitan core. When vacancies remain unfilled, procedures opaque, and leadership unstable, universities cease to be engines of transformation and instead become symbols of institutional fatigue. Yet, this moment also presents an opportunity. If approached with sincerity, transparency, and sustained oversight, BGSBU can turn a crisis into a course correction by institutionalising merit-based recruitment, ensuring procedural fairness, empowering faculty, and aligning curricula with local and national priorities. The future of the university, and indeed of border-district education in Jammu and Kashmir, depends on rebuilding trust through visible reform and accountable governance. It is no longer a question of policy rhetoric but of moral responsibility, to the students who believe education can still change their lives, and to a region that looks to its university not merely for degrees, but for dignity and direction. For the author bio and references visit www.jkpi.org.)
