Nepal’s higher education system stands at a critical crossroads. For decades, universities have been created without a national framework and expanded without a coherent governance model, resulting in overlapping authorities, political interference, and managerial paralysis. It is difficult to understand what has guided the growth of higher education in its current form: some universities are led by the Prime Minister as Chancellor, while newer institutions are headed by individuals serving as President. At the centre of this confusion lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of Chancellor and President—two positions that, in modern university systems, anchor institutional leadership. Although universities led by presidents are yet to be well established in Nepal, public debate is growing over whether the Prime Minister should continue as Chancellor, with critics arguing that the role has become overly political.
In most countries, the Chancellor is either a ceremonial figure or the chief executive of the university, depending on the governance model. The Board of Trustees functions as the highest oversight body, ensuring transparency, financial integrity, and long-term vision. The relationship between these roles is usually clear and professionally structured. Nepal’s practice, however, deviates significantly from global norms. Internationally, even world-ranked universities with centuries-old traditions are led by ceremonial Chancellors without political interference. This raises an important question: is the political nature of Nepal’s Chancellorship inherent, or is it a consequence of the country’s broader political environment?
The Political Role of the Chancellor
In Nepal’s major public universities, the Prime Minister automatically serves as Chancellor. This makes the role highly political and largely ceremonial. Given the Prime Minister’s national responsibilities, meaningful engagement with academic planning, institutional development, or quality enhancement is virtually impossible. The Chancellor’s role becomes limited to presiding over convocations, making appointments, and endorsing policy decisions prepared by others. Even in Tribhuvan University’s case, when Vice-Chancellors were weak, Senate meetings were convened at the Prime Minister’s residence, undermining academic dignity and institutional autonomy.
This arrangement weakens universities and makes them vulnerable to political shifts, as every change in government results in a new Chancellor. However, the problem lies not solely with the Chancellors; Vice-Chancellors who enable political interference also share responsibility.
Eight universities from Nepal, India and B’desh to compete in J...
Boards of Trustees and Their Limitations
Governance authority in Nepali universities rests officially with bodies such as the Senate, Executive Council, or Board of Trustees, depending on the respective university acts. These bodies are expected to set policy, approve budgets, evaluate leadership, and ensure accountability.
However, many Nepali boards are dominated by political appointees who lack professional expertise in higher education governance. Instead of functioning as independent, strategic bodies, they often operate as extensions of the ruling coalition. Decision-making becomes slow, inconsistent, and influenced more by political alignment than academic priorities. This experience has strengthened public support for introducing university Presidents as a way to escape politically driven Chancellorship.
The lack of a clear boundary between governance and politics ultimately undermines the boards’ ability to provide long-term direction and safeguard universities from partisan interests. Although the Vice-Chancellor is expected to serve as the university’s chief executive, their authority is often weakened by political negotiations involving both the Chancellor and board members. This leads to blurred accountability—when quality declines, no one can be clearly held responsible.
The Need for a Modern Governance Model
Nepal’s universities have expanded in number and geography, but not structurally. Without a rational governance model, the relationships among the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, and executive leadership remain ambiguous.
For Nepal to build strong, competitive universities, it must clearly define the distinct roles of its leadership bodies—particularly in light of the size and complexity of Tribhuvan University (TU). TU is one of the largest universities in the world, with hundreds of thousands of students and more than a thousand campuses nationwide. Given this scale, simply replacing the Prime Minister as Chancellor with an individual President could seriously destabilise the institution. Other universities, with more manageable structures, may adopt this idea more easily.
Meaningful change in TU is possible only if it is restructured in line with ‘TU Vision 2030’, an initiative that drew insights from the California system of higher education. TU’s large constituent campuses must be developed as autonomous institutions, each capable of coordinating smaller campuses within the region. Such institutions could be led by individuals other than the Prime Minister.
Because TU accounts for more than 80% of Nepal’s higher education enrolment, any reform of the national system must begin with TU. Considering its size, complexity, and national importance, a model similar to the California system—linking research universities, government universities, and community colleges—can provide useful insights. These institutions would be autonomous yet linked through a coordinated framework. Until such a framework is implemented, the highest coordination role in Nepal may need to remain under the leadership of the Prime Minister, much like the role of the Regent in California’s system. Universities coordinating TU’s campuses at the regional level could be led by a President.
A Path Toward Stability and Quality
Nepal’s universities currently suffer from structural ambiguity that obstructs reform and undermines quality. Clarifying the relationship between the Chancellor and the President is essential to correcting this imbalance. Only with a coherent governance model can Nepal’s higher education system become more autonomous, accountable, and globally competitive. A modern university cannot function without clarity of purpose and clearly defined roles based on long-term planning. Nepal’s higher education system deserves both.
The Ministry of Education should learn from past mistakes, as it has often established new universities without insights from successful models in the US, UK, and India. Instead of allowing TU’s Agriculture Campus in Rampur to evolve into an independent Agriculture University, it created a new university by displacing TU from Rampur. Similar issues have occurred with other universities. Today, debates over merging universities or replacing the Chancellor with a President often proceed without transparency or comprehensive planning; unlike in other countries that implement such changes after national-level deliberation and a master plan.
The author is former Vice Chancellor of Tribhuvan University.
