Every semester in Indian colleges, the same anxiety resurfaces—not over exams, but over attendance. Students scramble to meet the 75% rule, professors chase signatures, and administrators issue warnings. But beneath this ritual lies a question that rarely gets asked: why does attendance matter so much in the first place?
The logic behind enforcing attendance is largely administrative, not educational. Institutions are bound by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and AICTE norms that demand minimum classroom hours for accreditation. Colleges need quantifiable proof that teaching has occurred—and attendance registers serve as evidence. It’s a system designed for compliance, not curiosity.
Pedagogically, teachers argue that learning is more than
reading notes or passing exams. They believe exposure to discussions, debates, and lab sessions nurtures understanding. That’s true—but only when classrooms are truly engaging. The unfortunate reality is that many lectures remain one-directional, making attendance feel like a chore rather than an opportunity.
At its core, compulsory attendance infantilises adult learners. It assumes that a student must be forced to learn. In an era where knowledge is accessible on demand—from digital platforms to open courses—equating physical presence with intellectual growth feels archaic. A student who learns independently and performs well should not be penalised for missing class; the goal of education is understanding, not obedience.
Contrast this with universities in the West. In the United States and much of Europe, attendance is rarely mandatory. Professors may take roll, but students are treated as responsible adults who manage their own learning. Only programmes bound by external regulations, such as student visa monitoring or lab courses, enforce attendance strictly. The system trusts the learner’s maturity.
India’s rigid attendance culture is, in truth, a remnant of colonial and bureaucratic control—a belief that discipline must precede freedom. Yet the best universities in the world build responsibility through autonomy, not enforcement. They measure outcomes, not seat time.
If India’s higher-education system truly wants to prepare thinkers, innovators, and problem-solvers, it must evolve beyond the attendance register. Replace percentages with participation—physical or digital. Recognise self-learning, projects, and research as legitimate engagement. Reward initiative, not mere presence.
Because education is not about being in class; it’s about being curious. And curiosity doesn’t need attendance—it needs freedom.
The author is Director & Curator at Mahatma Gandhi Digital Museums, Trustee at Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts & Independent Director at Sayaji. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
