The initiative to establish a Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Bangladesh represents a crucial step towards improving and developing the university system in that country. Currently, higher education in Bangladesh stands at a critical juncture, where increased access has diminished quality. This initiative represents Dr. Yunus's progressive approach to Bangladeshi institutions, who has always stressed the need for drastic changes. Dr. Yunus's relentless efforts towards innovation and excellence reflect his eagerness to make his country's education system one of the finest across the world.

But the proposed draft may not adequately lay out Dr. Yunus's vision and strategy. Dr. Yunus's philosophy of higher education emphasizes autonomy, creativity, and globalization to remain competitive in the international arena. But some aspects of the proposed draft appear to need a return to the drawing board. It aims to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC), which has received numerous criticisms in the past. But whether the Commission will effectively implement the changes for the universities remains to be seen.

Having witnessed concerns about a deterioration in academic standards, politicization at its core, and a lack of research capabilities, a constructive and cautiously optimistic response to the future HEC's intentions is warranted. In reality, examination of this draft shows that this is a moment of reform that holds both promise and threat simultaneously. While it has very commendable intentions, it has structural flaws that, if left unchecked, might turn a vision into another layer of bureaucracy. The question that thus arises is not whether a country like Bangladesh requires a Higher Education Commission but whether it is capable of creating one that can be a catalyst, rather than a controller, for excellence.

Positive Aspects of the Proposed HEC

One major advantage of this draft is that it acknowledges the need for leadership in this field to be more strategic rather than procedural. The draft shows awareness of issues to planning at the national level and relating the higher education sector to the development agenda. The draft acknowledges the weakness in the earlier UGC framework regarding governance.

The proposed move also reflects an attempt to impose much-needed order on a disorganized system with plans to regulate both public and private universities. This is significant given the rapid proliferation of private universities in Bangladesh, which has kept pace with neither quality nor the capacity to regulate effectively. On the face of it, an empowered commission would help to impose certain benchmarks on the system. The fact that the draft emphasizes data collection, monitoring, and evaluation indicates that informed decisions should be based on evidence. A number of top higher education systems rely on high-quality national data. Here, one positive move is being made through draft HEC.

 

Structural Weaknesses and Risks

However, despite these lofty ideals, the proposed HEC is problematic in its design and authority structure. The first problem is one of excessive concentration of authority. Too much power has been entrusted to the Commission regarding universities, from academic to administrative matters, without adequate checks to ensure universities' freedom. World experience has shown that a university prospers not in a commanded environment but in a properly managed autonomy, where accountability is balanced with academic freedom.

Another area of concern is the apparent overlap and ambiguity in the jurisdictions of both the draft HEC and other regulatory authorities. Rather than providing clarity about jurisdictions, it is likely to cause confusion and paralysis in decision-making. All this is likely to politicize and hinder the very change it aims to achieve.

The draft appears to emphasize control over inspiring new ideas. The draft describes how control and compliance are to be implemented but does not demonstrate clearly how it will support research, faculty development, international collaboration, or how universities are to develop specialization. There is no clear indication that HEC is to assist in university development rather than serve as a monitoring entity.

Lastly, the draft lacks effective safeguards against the impact of politics. The manner in which members are appointed, the security of tenure, and the roles of academics and universities lack adequate safeguards and may result in the HEC becoming a mere extension of central control, as it has previously done with the education institutions of Bangladesh.

The UGC Problem: Bureaucracy over Innovation

However, to properly discuss any improvements in Bangladesh's post-secondary education sector, a difficult reality must be acknowledged: the University Grants Commission (UGC) has generally been a controlling bureaucracy rather than an innovation promoter. Indeed, a common claim against the UGC regulations is that they suppress innovation within the curriculum.

Instead of supporting innovations such as new ideas, interdisciplinary studies, and industry-specific programs, the UGC has tended to strictly enforce norms.

A range of forward-looking initiatives including the introduction of new and flexible academic programs, credit-transfer arrangements, and strategic institutional tie-ups have repeatedly been stalled or summarily rejected, often on tenuous or poorly substantiated grounds. Many education experts argue that these decisions reflect a deeper problem: a lack of subject-matter expertise and contemporary understanding among those tasked with evaluating such proposals. In several cases, review bodies have been dominated by representatives from a narrow segment of public universities that themselves lack experience with innovative curriculum design and remain insufficiently attuned to evolving disciplinary knowledge and industry demands.

The consequences of this imbalance have been particularly severe for private universities, which are typically at the forefront of pedagogical innovation and programmatic flexibility. By penalizing institutions that experiment with new models of teaching and learning, the system inadvertently discourages innovation, undermines responsiveness to labor-market needs, and constrains the broader modernization of higher education.

It has also been argued that the majority of UGC leaders and the chairman are typically recruited from a short list of public universities. There have been apprehensions that policies are framed in accordance with antiquated thought processes and not a collective vision for the group as a whole. Some of these institutions, which play a significant role in history, are also not aligned to global developments in terms of advancements in research and education practices.

It is thus not unexpected that robust resistance is being built against the appointment of the next UGC or HEC Chairman from the same background. It is a common argument among academics, the leadership of private-sector universities, and policy analysts that the appointment of people from a setting less dynamic in research and less amenable to curriculum change would lead to the same kind of stagnation in the governance of these institutions. Bangladesh, which is currently facing a shift in the world of higher education driven by technologies such as AI, online education, and outcome-based education, as well as industry-academia collaboration, requires a different setting.

This kind of criticism does not target public institutions of higher learning or the law. In fact, this criticism advocates for a need for diversity in leadership or leadership based on merit. The proposed new Higher Education Commission will face similar challenges if it adopts the same inflexible strategy as the UGC. The most important takeaway here is that in real change, nothing much happens by changing names. The new commission should leave aside old habits and work towards academic freedom, quality research, flexible courses, and varied leadership. Otherwise, rather than creating a new gatekeeper, Bangladesh will miss this opportunity to truly enhance its higher education system.

 

Lessons from Failures in UGC to Reform in HEC: What Is Needed in the Draft

Rather, as one senior education policy official told me on condition of anonymity, “the UGC’s well-known shortcomings provide a troubling template for what might happen if this proposal is not completely recast. This is not simply a matter of giving the proposed commission a different name and expecting that somehow everything will improve. Rather, as this official told me, “A change of name without a corresponding shift in mindset will simply iterate past problems with a different acronym.”

First, the draft HEC should clearly delineate the center's powers regarding curriculum formulation and design. This is because the university system had been stifled most by the UGC's obsession with standard academic templates, which rarely permitted innovation especially in private universities. As a senior vice-chancellor drew attention to in a personal interview, universities were treated more as administrative units rather than knowledge institutions, innovation made tardy/hamstrung through endorsement procedures. The draft should accordingly be altered to clearly state that curriculum formulation, innovation in education, interdisciplinary courses, and industry-linked courses are largely the province of the university, with only general quality standards invoked rather than the need for the center's endorsement.

Secondly, the draft needs to transform the Commission's role, not just as a regulator, but as an enabler. Unlike the UGC model, which is driven entirely by regulatory functions and compliance, the scope of the HEC should be focused solely on strategic areas such as research support, national accreditation norms, faculty development, information technology infrastructure development, and global collaboration. As one seasoned observer of higher education aptly notes, Bangladesh’s challenge is not a deficit of regulation, but a deficit of incentives for excellence. The system is heavily regulated, yet it offers too few rewards for quality, innovation, and academic distinction leaving universities constrained by oversight rather than inspired by ambition. There is a need to tighten invasive regulatory clauses and refocus on incentive-driven regulatory instruments, such as grant competitions, guided by a model like the reform-minded Pakistani higher education authority, the HEC.

Third, there should be a reform of the leadership structure and the eligibility for appointments. To prevent the perpetuation of conservatism, it should be stipulated that representation be balanced, including prominent academics from various public and private institutions, active academics, industry-connected faculty members, and globally exposed educators. An anonymous comment from an involved senior professor on the country’s curriculum change: "If you want to make the education system modern, you cannot keep having the same small circle within institutions as leaders, who have been opposed to such developments for the last many decades."

Fourth, the “draft should have good provisions regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This is almost entirely lacking in the present document.” This is important to ensure a degree of insulation of the HEC from political and administrative pressures. “Without legal insulation, no commission, no matter how well designed, can act independently,” argued a former policymaker. This is what has happened to the UGC: a lack of trust has developed in the system.

Finally, the final draft needs to ensure that the HEC operates with accountability to the people and the academic community, not just to the government. Anonymous stakeholders in universities have highlighted the importance of enshrining openness in the higher education sector through annual “State of Higher Education” reports and performance audits.

In conclusion, the draft form of the Bangladesh HEC must undergo significant amendments to avoid repeating the errors of the current UGC. That is to say that without the necessary improvements, the proposed new commission will be no better than the previous one, simply another bottleneck.

 

Lessons from South Asia: What Works and Why

A South Asian perspective can provide many lessons in an effective higher education commission and its shortcomings. The Indian experience with the University Grants Commission (UGC) and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is mixed but full of lessons. The Indian experience has often been viewed as over-regulated and bureaucratic, yet its accreditation and peer reviews, when kept free of politics, have played an important role in supporting world-class institutes and a vast mass education system. The experience leaves no doubt that, in attempting to regulate in order to excel, transparency and merit are essential.

Perhaps the strongest example from the region would be the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan, which many people believe to be one of the best education reform agencies operating in the South Asian region. After being established in 2002, the Pakistan HEC turned the failing university system upside down through research funding, strengthening the research workforce, international engagement, digital library networks, and merit-based administration. Most importantly, this organization operated with a specific strategic focus and had no involvement in the minute operations of the university or academic education.

The Sri Lankan University Grants Commission provides another useful example. It maintains a balance between overall coordination and a degree of autonomy. The institutions function under broader national policies but are free to develop their own way. The Nepal University Grants Commission places similar emphasis on the allocation of funds, maintaining quality, and overall coordination, without impinging on academic autonomy.

Taken together, these regional experiences point to a consistent principle: successful education commissions guide, enable, and incentivize they do not dominate. They set national standards, ensure accountability, and support excellence, while trusting universities to fulfill their academic missions.

In this regard, the draft model of the Higher Education Commission in Bangladesh is more oriented toward the ideas of control and compliance. Considering successful models from the South Asian region, the draft needs to be rebalanced to shift from control to facilitation. In this context, the following will be required:

The Commission's powers vis-vis internal university matters will have to be circumscribed.

If Bangladesh can take the best from the reform-minded model in Pakistan and the autonomy-focused model in Sri Lanka, it can certainly ensure that the Higher Education Commission in Bangladesh becomes the driving force for excellence in higher education and not the authority for enforcing sameness. The question, therefore, is not whether Bangladesh should have a Commission but how it should become one.

 

Global Comparisons: Beyond the Region

From elsewhere in the world, true change in higher education requires trust, expertise, and accountability, not control. Truly successful countries demonstrate that freedom and quality university leadership are not incompatible. The Finnish example stands out as particularly informative. The Finnish higher education sector has a system that thrives on professional trust, academic freedom, and national consensus. The key policy guidelines are set by quasi-autonomous institutions; otherwise, institutions have been given a large degree of autonomy over matters such as their curriculum. The Finnish system has helped Finnish institutions to remain world-class while keeping pace with new fields of study.

The evolution of South Korea into a world-class knowledge nation offers important lessons. Although the government played a constructive role in establishing the nation’s strategic direction, especially in areas such as science, technology, and innovation, it made a point not to control these institutions. Instead, the institutions were given considerable autonomy to compete globally. The goal was to tap into the world's best minds.

In the United Kingdom, the Office for Students is a prime example of the modern regulatory approach, which focuses on outcomes rather than processes. It focuses on transparency, consumer protection, quality assurance, and the financial sustainability of higher education institutions. However, it does not control the institution's curriculum or internal governance.

In each situation, there is one theme that holds true: autonomy and accountability. If regulators allow academic decision-making to be dictated too heavily, they stifle innovation and breed mistrust. But regulators can be effective and enable high-quality universities with proper guidelines and incentives. For Bangladesh, these are worldwide takeaways. If the Higher Education Commission in Bangladesh is established in accordance with these guidelines, it would bring about a positive transformation in universities. But if it’s established following control and regulation guidelines, Bangladesh would become a part of the worldwide community of knowledge it wants to be a part of.

Conclusion: Reform, Not Replacement.

The proposed Higher Education Commission is a clear indicator that Bangladesh recognizes that the existing higher education system is not one that can be retained as it is. However, true reform is more complex and goes beyond institutions. A mere replacement of one institution by another is not true reform. It is at this juncture that the visionary leadership qualities of Dr. Muhammad Yunus come into play. The passion for innovation, for human dignity, and for global excellence, which Dr. Yunus embodies throughout his lifetime, would want him to not just concentrate on the facility of administration, but rather take the initiative to align the proposed policy with a nobler dream, one which is aligned with his own philosophy of creativity instead of control, and trust instead of rigidity. If the draft does not change to allow less government control and better global best practices for academic freedom, then a situation might arise in which the HEC becomes another hurdle for our country. Our country has no use for a commission that dictates orders. It is still possible to get this right. If policymakers learn from the examples of other nations and strike the right balance between autonomy and accountability, while emphasizing professionalism aligned with the nation's needs, the Higher Education Commission has the potential to make a difference in achieving excellence. It will not only manage the higher education sector but will also make the Bangladeshi universities a source of strength to the global community.