Opinion
India offers a major opportunity for Australian higher education. But genuine diversification requires more than changing where international students come from.
Australian universities have spent considerable time discussing the need to diversify their international student cohorts. Yet much of this discussion rests on a surprisingly narrow understanding of diversification: reducing dependence on China by recruiting more students from other countries, particularly India.
India will undoubtedly play a central role in Australia's international education future. But replacing dependence on one large market with dependence on another is not diversification. It is simply shifting the source of institutional vulnerability.
The numbers illustrate the challenge. According to Australian government data, China accounted for 23 per cent of international students in the year to August 2026, followed by India at 16 per cent. Together, they represented almost two-fifths of Australia's international students. These figures cover all education sectors, although the concentration challenge is particularly relevant to universities.
India's demographic scale, expanding middle class and growing demand for internationally recognised qualifications make it an enormously attractive partner. However, India's significance extends well beyond the number of students it can send to Australia.
India is itself transforming its higher education landscape. Australian universities establishing campuses across India, including Deakin University and the University of Wollongong in GIFT City, UNSW in Bengaluru, and the University of Western Australia in Mumbai, illustrate the emergence of a relationship that increasingly encompasses offshore education, research collaboration, industry engagement and deeper institutional partnerships. These developments signal a shift from viewing India primarily as a source of international students to recognising it as a strategic partner in education and innovation.
The strategic opportunity is therefore not simply to recruit more Indian students, but to build deeper and more varied engagement with India's education and innovation ecosystem. This requires universities to rethink how they measure internationalisation. Most institutions can readily report the proportion of international students coming from different countries. But this reveals only part of their exposure. Drawing on established approaches to portfolio management in international business, I would suggest three simple measures that every Australian university could report annually.
First, revenue concentration: what proportion of international tuition fee revenue comes from the university's three largest source countries? This reveals financial dependence more directly than student numbers alone. Universities already collect enrolment and fee data, making this a relatively straightforward measure to calculate.
Second, disciplinary concentration: what proportion of international enrolments is concentrated in the three largest fields of study? A university might recruit students from many countries but remain heavily dependent on a small number of programs. This creates vulnerability when student preferences, employment opportunities or professional accreditation requirements change.
Third, diversification progress: what proportion of new international commencements comes from countries outside the university's three largest existing source markets? This provides a simple indication of whether recruitment strategies are genuinely broadening the international portfolio or reinforcing existing dependencies.
Together, these measures would provide university governing bodies with a more meaningful picture of diversification. They could be reported alongside existing enrolment indicators, using consistent definitions, and tracked over time. They are not intended to replace more sophisticated risk assessments, but to make institutional exposure more visible.
The next step is to turn this information into strategic action. This is where the concept of capability advantage becomes relevant. In international business, long-term success depends not simply on access to attractive markets, but on an organisation's ability to develop, deploy and adapt capabilities across changing environments.
For universities, this means investing in capabilities to understand different student markets, develop trusted institutional partnerships, adapt educational offerings and connect graduates with meaningful career opportunities.
India provides an excellent example. Recruitment approaches suited to Bengaluru or Mumbai may not work equally well in emerging educational centres elsewhere in the country. Understanding these differences requires more than recruitment agents and marketing campaigns.
Artificial intelligence could strengthen these capabilities. Universities could use AI-assisted analytics to identify changes in student demand, evaluate recruitment scenarios and identify emerging patterns across disciplines and markets. But technology should support strategic judgement, not substitute for it. Reliable data, appropriate safeguards and human oversight remain essential.
Ultimately, India should be central to Australia's international education strategy, but it should not become the strategy itself. The universities best positioned for the future will be those that combine strong engagement with India with a broader, more resilient international portfolio.
The real measure of success is not whether Australia attracts more students from India. It is whether Australian universities become less vulnerable, more adaptable and better equipped to engage with a changing world.
Vikas Kumar is Professor of International Business at the University of Sydney Business School.