14/12/2025
Encouragingly, conversations around happiness, wellbeing, and mental health in higher education are beginning to take shape in India. Such dialogues are much needed, and one such discussion recently took place at Institutions of Happiness, organised by QS I∙GAUGE at The Lalit, New Delhi and I was happy to represent Kumaraguru Institutions along with Dr. Deepesh Chandrasekharan. It was reassuring to see education leaders from across the country engage thoughtfully with the mental-health realities of Indian academia.
From a neuroscientific perspective, this conversation is especially timely. The majority of students in higher education, typically between 18 and 25 years, are still undergoing critical brain development. The prefrontal cortex, which governs executive functions such as planning, judgment, impulse control, and emotional regulation, is not yet fully mature during this period. In contrast, limbic and paralimbic regions involved in emotional processing, such as the anterior cingulate gyrus, amygdala, and related affective networks, tend to be relatively more reactive and hyper-responsive. This developmental imbalance, where emotional systems mature earlier than regulatory systems, helps explain the heightened emotional reactivity, stress sensitivity, and affective volatility often observed during this phase.
This neurobiological vulnerability unfolds alongside substantial psychosocial pressures. Students today navigate academic demands, identity formation, relationship challenges, self-esteem concerns, peer comparison, social and cognitive dissonance, and uncertainty about the future. Many also carry the emotional burden of family conflict or financial stress, where instability at home further compromises psychological resilience. Within campuses, performance pressure, interpersonal conflicts, and fear of failure add further strain. Importantly, many students experience academic misalignment, realising that the discipline they once chose no longer aligns with their interests, abilities, or sense of purpose.
Taken together, this forms a deeply multifaceted challenge, making “happiness” difficult to define and even harder to operationalise for this age group. As Prof. Ramgopal Rao insightfully reflected from his experience, while the contours of the problem are increasingly evident, viable solutions remain uncertain, making this, indeed, a hard nut to crack.
Adding an important psychological lens, Dr. Manas Kumar Mandal highlighted the relevance of libertarian paternalism, as articulated by Thaler and Sunstein, the idea that individuals should be gently guided toward healthier choices while preserving autonomy. In the context of young adults, this is particularly salient. A sense of agency and perceived control is central to psychological wellbeing, motivation, and self-regulation. Overly prescriptive institutional approaches risk undermining this sense of control, whereas thoughtfully designed choice architectures can empower students to engage, seek support, and take responsibility for their wellbeing. On this point, I could not agree more.
For academic leaders, the challenge is even more layered. As Mr. Shankar Vanavarayar pointed out, institutional leadership must simultaneously respond to parents and families, media narratives, academic outcomes, curricular obligations, faculty expectations, regulatory frameworks, and student wellbeing. Leadership in this space is no longer purely administrative; it is developmental, ethical, and psychological. Decisions taken at the policy level shape campus culture, help-seeking behaviour, and students’ sense of agency in profound ways.
What is now required is a policy-informed, evidence-based, and contextually grounded response. Student wellbeing must move beyond ad-hoc initiatives to become a core institutional priority, embedded within governance structures, curriculum design, faculty development, and student-support systems. This demands leadership willing to engage with neuroscience and psychological science, invest in preventive and promotive frameworks, and design systems that balance autonomy with support. Only through sustained dialogue, cross-sector collaboration, and culturally attuned policy thinking can higher-education institutions meaningfully address this challenge, while remaining academically rigorous, socially responsible, and future-ready.
