UGC Equity Regulations 2026: What can India learn from Japan’s approach to campus harmony?

Education is considered a pathway for societies to achieve greater social cohesion and equality. Yet educational institutions, especially universities and Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) as the main providers of advanced education, have increasingly come into question concerning their role in manifesting and perpetuating social categorisations, inequalities and discrimination instead of decreasing existing fragmentations and challenging power relations and hierarchies.

As a diverse society, India is faced with power struggles and rivalries between different groups — for instance, along religious and caste lines, often constructed deep in colonial history. This affects teaching and learning, and the result is that India faces vast disparities in terms of educational access and success, rendering some social groups marginalised and others favoured.

India, under the present government, is making great efforts to achieve the United Nations Education for All Agenda and to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education” for all, as laid out in Sustainable Development Goal 4. The UNESCO World Inequality Database on Education reveals vast disparities in many countries concerning access to, and success in, education between, for example, rural and urban, female and male, rich and poor children and youth. The United Nations Development Programme points out that inequalities often start before birth and “accumulate through life, often reflecting deep power imbalances” — with education, education policy and institutions playing a key role in reproducing or transforming inequalities “formed deep in history”.

Issues of social disparity and social cohesion are often debated by educationists worldwide who seek ways to modify education systems to respond to social inequality and increasing social fragmentation that destabilise democracies. Diversity has emerged as a concept closely linked to the struggle for recognition and participation by many marginalised social groups belonging to all religions. Educational institutions in India are controlled by different religious organisations apart from the government, and vested interests discriminate against and misrepresent specific social groups.

The UGC (University Grants Commission) has frequently been confronted with how these structures and mechanisms can be transcended to achieve equality, greater social justice and less discrimination. In suspending the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) new regulations to promote equity in higher education institutions, the Supreme Court has put on hold a reform initiated by itself.

The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, stemming from the Abeda Salim Tadvi vs Union of India case, were introduced to mandate equity committees in all higher education institutions to address discrimination. But in January 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the 2026 regulations following complaints about their definition of discrimination and the potential for misuse.

In February 2025, a month after the Apex Court ordered the UGC to revise the 2012 rules addressing caste-based discrimination, the education regulator released a draft for public scrutiny. The new regulations promulgated on January 13 incorporated several suggested changes, including recognising prejudice against other backward classes and removing the penalty for false complaints, which might prevent students from coming forward. The need for revision emanated from a general perception that neither the earlier rules nor the laws meant to prevent atrocities against members of lower castes and tribes were effective or adequate in dealing with on-campus discrimination.

In the new rules, Clause 3(e), the term discrimination has been given a wide scope, embracing grounds of “religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them”. Expansion of the definition of discrimination to comprise “any distinction, exclusion, limitation, or preference” is acceptable; but without offences explicitly spelt out, there is wide scope for misuse.

The antagonistic atmosphere plaguing educational institutions is visible across the educational spectrum in spheres of teaching, evaluation and use of facilities, especially hostels and dining halls, among students owing to their affinity with different religions and castes. This led to the framing of the 2012 regulations, which had to be revised on the Apex Court’s direction, leading to the latest 2026 regulations. But this has also invited serious backlash, catching the government by surprise. Students bracketed in the general category are of the view that the new rules could cause reverse discrimination against so-called higher-caste students and implicate them in false cases.

Consider the different laws that a student faces in educational institutions:

Prohibition and Eradication of Ragging Act, 2019.

UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015.

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, enforced via UGC and AICTE regulations.

University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (presently under revision as 2026 regulations).

University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012.

In addition to the above, there are a plethora of committees, such as:

Committee to look into discrimination complaints received from SC/ST/OBC students, teachers and non-teaching staff.

Equal Opportunity Cells to oversee effective implementation of policies and programmes for disadvantaged groups, provide guidance and counselling with respect to academic, financial, social and other matters, and enhance diversity within campuses.

All AICTE-approved institutions have a Committee for SC/ST (as per the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, No. 33 of 1989, dated 11.09.1989).

Public Grievance Redressal Cell (PGRC) of AICTE.

In addition, challenges appear in the form of addictions to alcohol, drugs, online gaming, internet addiction and smartphone addiction, to name a few, which contribute to tensions and disharmony on campuses. Students and their guardians become petrified and alarmed thinking about the legal consequences of getting trapped in these laws and regulations. The economically well-off segment, therefore, prefers to send their wards to Europe or elsewhere to acquire academic qualifications peacefully.

This writer is of the opinion that what the UGC should have done was set up an Expert Committee to study how to achieve national cohesion and integration. Integration is a key contributor to community cohesion. It enables students to relate to each other harmoniously.

On the other hand, cohesion is the act or state of sticking together or close union. It is cohering or being in consonance with each other. Cohesion implies positive group dynamics and positive energy that are experienced. Social cohesion is the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunities based on a sense of hope, trust and reciprocity. It also involves the willingness of student groups with diverse values and objectives to coexist, share resources, have mutual respect for each other and abide by the rules of the land. National cohesion embraces unity of purpose in the citizenry’s participation in economic, social and political processes.

Unfortunately, the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, seek to perpetuate and reinforce caste configurations. Hostile student communities based on caste will lead to disruptions and disharmony.

The UGC Committee should have studied how Japan ensures harmony on university campuses by cultivating a collective culture of wa (group harmony), emphasising mutual respect and enforcing strict social norms. They have a unique concept called High-Context Communication — students are trained to “read the atmosphere”, allowing smoother interpersonal relationships with less direct conflict.

Japan’s educational system provides a way to train and incorporate discipline and teamwork into the lives of college students efficiently. Japan has built an environment where youngsters learn to respect authority, collaborate with others and strive for excellence by emphasising early adolescence schooling, classroom control, collaborative learning and cultural values. In addition to preparing students for academic achievement, the values of discipline and teamwork also give them vital life competencies important for personal and professional development.

Japan’s educational philosophy emphasises the importance of building good manners and character during the first three years of school. Japanese educators believe nurturing social skills and personal development is crucial before assessing academic knowledge. By prioritising character development over early testing, schools aim to create well-rounded individuals who value respect and cooperation, laying a strong foundation for future learning and personal growth.

India has a great tradition of teaching stretching back into Vedic times. The prayer known as the Sahanavavatu Shanti Mantra, a sacred invocation for harmony and mutual protection between teacher and student, is commonly recited at the start of learning in several Upanishads, such as the Taittiriya and Katha Upanishads.

The mantra (Saha nāv avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu, Saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai, Tejasvi nāvadhītam astu, Mā vidviṣāvahai) translates to: “May God protect us both, nourish us both, may we work together with energy, may our study be enlightening, and may we not hate each other”. The important text is “…may we not hate each other”. That is the need of the day. There needs to be harmony and peace between diverse groups of students, as also among teachers. The student-teacher bond is important in the progress and development of the nation.

The author is former Director General of National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics