Historical Evolution of Centre-State Relations in Indian Education

India’s education system today – with its mix of central policies and state-level implementation – did not emerge overnight. It is the product of nearly two centuries of colonial administration, constitutional reforms, and post-independence restructuring. To understand how educational governance is shared between the Centre and the states in India, we need to go back to the very foundations: the era of British rule, when education was first defined as a matter of governance rather than tradition.

Colonial foundations: how the British shaped education governance
Wood’s Despatch of 1854 and the Crown’s takeover
The Government of India Act, 1919: education becomes a “transferred” subject
The Government of India Act, 1935: provincial autonomy and fuller control
Post-independence shift: from provincial autonomy to central oversight
The Radhakrishnan Commission and early centralization of higher education
The 42nd Amendment and the concurrent list (1976)

Colonial foundations: how the British shaped education governance

Before the British arrived, education in India was largely a community and religious affair – Pathshalas, Tols, Madrasas, and Maktabs served different communities with no overarching state authority dictating what or how to teach. The British East India Company, which arrived in India in the early 1600s, initially showed little interest in education, viewing it as irrelevant to its commercial objectives. That indifference held firm well into the 18th century.

The first formal step came with the Charter Act of 1813. Section 43 of this Act constituted the first legislative acknowledgment of the government’s responsibility toward education in India, directing the Company to allocate one lakh rupees annually for the promotion of education. The objectives were broad: the revival of Indian literature, support for learned natives, and the promotion of scientific knowledge. However, there were no clear directions on how this was to be achieved, and implementation was delayed for nearly a decade due to a lack of fund allocation.

The real turning point in colonial education policy came with Macaulay’s Minute of 1835. Thomas Macaulay established the need for English education for Indian natives, and Western education was introduced primarily to create a class of English-speaking workers. Schools and colleges began focusing on English, science, and mathematics – not to liberate Indian minds, but to produce efficient clerks and administrative assistants for the colonial machinery.

During this entire period, control over education remained firmly at the top. Throughout the colonial period, in practice, all education from the lowest to the higher level was managed by the Governor-General-in-Council. Regional authority was vested in provinces where Directors of Public Instruction (DPIs) carried out the Centre’s mandates. Education was not a provincial concern – it was an instrument of empire.

Wood’s Despatch of 1854 and the Crown’s takeover

Wood’s Despatch of 1854 marked an important shift in colonial educational philosophy. It called for a more systematic approach – recommending universities, a network of affiliated schools and colleges, and the use of vernacular languages at the primary level. When the Crown formally took control of India in 1857, the general guidelines of Wood’s Despatch set the tone for subsequent colonial policies. Beginning in the 1860s, a new schooling system emerged with government universities, affiliated colleges, and both provincial government and local-board-managed primary and secondary schools.

However, even this expansion did not democratize control. When British officials introduced modest self-government in the 1860s, they shifted financial responsibility for education to a growing Indian middle class, and local spending was dominated by educating urban men for professional careers – to the detriment of rural and women’s education. The colonial government’s investment remained minimal: human capital expenditures in British India averaged just 0.01 pounds per capita from 1860 to 1912, representing a mere 4% of the total budget over those decades.

The Hunter Commission of 1882 attempted some course correction. It recommended that primary education be transferred to newly established district and municipal boards, proposing a decentralization of governance at the grassroots level. While limited in scope, this recommendation planted an early seed of the idea that education need not be managed entirely from the top.

The Government of India Act, 1919: education becomes a “transferred” subject

The most consequential shift in education governance during the colonial period came with the Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. This Act introduced a system called Dyarchy – a dual system of governance – at the provincial level. For the first time in India’s history, a formal constitutional distinction was made between subjects managed by British officials and those handed over to elected Indian representatives.

Dyarchy was introduced as a constitutional reform by Edwin Samuel Montagu and Lord Chelmsford, marking the first introduction of the democratic principle into the executive branch of British Indian administration. Under this system, provincial subjects were divided into two categories: Reserved subjects – such as law and order, finance, and irrigation – which remained under British control, and Transferred subjects – such as education, public health, local self-government, and agriculture – which were handed to Indian ministers accountable to elected provincial legislatures.

Education, health, agriculture, and local government were categorized as Transferred subjects, administered by Indian ministers responsible to the provincial legislature. This was a landmark moment: for the first time, elected Indian representatives had formal authority over educational policy in their provinces. They could influence funding, administration, curriculum, and the promotion of vernacular languages in schools.

In practice, however, Dyarchy was deeply flawed. While Indian legislators had some influence over educational matters such as funding, administration, and development, the ultimate authority and control still rested with the British government, which retained power over the finances that education depended upon. Indian ministers had no control over budgets or the bureaucracy – leading to constant friction and very limited impact on the ground. As Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, the Dyarchy system ended with the introduction of provincial autonomy in 1935.

The Government of India Act, 1935: provincial autonomy and fuller control

The shortcomings of Dyarchy made one thing clear: partial handover of power was unworkable. The Government of India Act, 1935 addressed this directly. It abolished Dyarchy at the provincial level entirely, replacing it with a system of Provincial Autonomy. Provinces were now given a far wider and more genuine scope of self-governance.

The Government of India Act 1935 curtailed the powers concentrated in the hands of the Central Government and distributed them, ensuring a more decentralized form of government in India. For education, this meant that elected provincial governments – now with a Council of Ministers responsible to their legislatures – had real authority over educational planning and administration within their territories.

Under the 1935 Act, the Governor was the head of the executive with a Council of Ministers to advise him, and those ministers were responsible to the provincial legislatures. Provinces no longer needed to seek approval from a British-controlled executive for every educational decision. This was a substantial upgrade from Dyarchy, where ministers had titles but little actual power.

That said, the 1935 Act was not without its contradictions. Provincial governors still retained special reserve powers, and the British authorities could suspend a provincial government if needed. The Act granted more autonomy to the provinces and expanded the role of elected Indian representatives in governance, including in educational matters – but the shadow of colonial oversight never fully lifted. Still, the Act served an important function: it accustomed Indian political leaders to the exercise of provincial governance, preparing them for the responsibilities they would assume after independence in 1947.

Post-independence shift: from provincial autonomy to central oversight

When India became independent in 1947, it inherited a deeply unequal education system. The new government recognized the importance of education in building a strong, independent nation and sought to make education accessible to all, irrespective of caste, creed, and region. But the question of who would govern education – the Centre or the states – required a clear constitutional answer.

The framers of the Indian Constitution placed education in the State List (Entry 11 of the Seventh Schedule, 1950). This meant that the primary responsibility for education rested with state governments, continuing the trajectory of provincial autonomy established under the 1935 Act. The new constitution did not change the overall administrative policy: education continued to be the prime responsibility of state governments, and the Union government assumed responsibility for coordination and the maintenance of standards in higher education, research, and scientific and technical education.

However, the Centre was not absent. Specific entries in the Seventh Schedule gave the Union government authority over institutions of national importance – central universities, IITs, and bodies for setting standards in higher education. The Radhakrishnan Commission made an interim recommendation that education be made a concurrent subject while the Constitution was under preparation, but the Constituent Assembly did not accept this recommendation. Instead, a compromise was worked out: certain key entries in the Union List gave the Centre far-reaching powers over higher education coordination.

The Radhakrishnan Commission and early centralization of higher education

The Government of India wasted no time in asserting central direction over higher education. The University Education Commission of 1948-49, headed by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, was established to assess and reform the university education system of newly independent India. The Commission laid the groundwork for India’s modern higher education structure and recommended the creation of a central regulatory body.

One of the Commission’s critical constitutional recommendations was to include university education in the Concurrent List, which would allow both the central and state governments to legislate on higher education, ensuring uniform standards and national coordination. While that recommendation was not immediately adopted into the Constitution, it led to a significant institutional outcome: the establishment of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 1953, which became the central body for funding and regulating universities across India.

This was a clear signal. Even while education remained formally a state subject, the Centre was steadily building institutions – the UGC, IITs, AICTE, and the Planning Commission’s Five-Year Plans – that extended its reach into educational governance at every level.

The 42nd Amendment and the concurrent list (1976)

The decisive constitutional shift came in 1976. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act formally moved education from the State List to the Concurrent List. Before 1976, state administrations delivered education at the district and taluka levels, with the central government only advising. After the amendment, both the Centre and the states could legislate on education, giving the Centre direct authority to frame national education policies.

This change had immediate practical consequences. As education is in the Concurrent List, state governments also contribute their own role in developing the education system, but it is the Centre that now sets the broad policy framework – through the National Policy on Education (1968, 1986, and 2020), the Right to Education Act (2009), and the establishment of national bodies like NCERT. The 1976 amendment also enabled the Centre to directly fund education through schemes like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.

Looking at the complete arc, the trajectory is clear: colonial India began with all educational authority concentrated at the very top, in the hands of the Governor-General. The Acts of 1919 and 1935 pushed power downward to elected provincial governments. Post-independence, a new balance was struck – starting with education as a state responsibility, then gradually expanding central oversight through institutions, commissions, and ultimately a constitutional amendment. The relationship between the Centre and the states in education is not static; it has been continuously renegotiated over nearly two centuries of governance.

What do you think? The colonial government used education primarily as a tool for administrative control, while post-independence India has used it as a tool for national development – but has the shift from provincial to central oversight always served the diverse needs of India’s states? And what does it mean for educational quality and equity when policy is made at the Centre but delivered at the state and local level?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Colonial foundations: how the British shaped education governance 🔗

Wood’s Despatch of 1854 and the Crown’s takeover 🔗

The Government of India Act, 1919: education becomes a “transferred” subject 🔗

The Government of India Act, 1935: provincial autonomy and fuller control 🔗

Post-independence shift: from provincial autonomy to central oversight 🔗

The Radhakrishnan Commission and early centralization of higher education 🔗

The 42nd Amendment and the concurrent list (1976) 🔗