Somewhere in India right now, a student is sitting in a library at 2 AM.
She is preparing for an examination that will determine, according to everyone who loves her, the trajectory of her entire life. She has not slept properly in three weeks. She has not called her friends in longer than that. She cannot remember the last time she did something purely because she wanted to. She is doing everything right — everything she was told to do, everything the system rewards — and she feels completely hollow.
She is not failing. She is succeeding. And she is miserable.
This story is not unusual. It is, in varying forms and intensities, the dominant experience of higher education for a significant proportion of Indian students — an experience that the statistics are finally beginning to make visible, even as the institutions responsible for it continue, with impressive institutional momentum, to produce more of the same.
India loses thousands of students to suicide every year. The National Crime Records Bureau has documented this consistently. A 2023 survey by the Indian Psychiatry Society found that over 60% of students in higher education report significant anxiety symptoms. Nearly one in three meets clinical criteria for depression. The gap between the mental health needs of Indian students and the capacity of their institutions to address those needs is, by any reasonable measure, a public health emergency.
And yet the conversation about what to do about it remains almost entirely focused on the wrong level of the problem.
More counselling services. Mental health helplines. Awareness weeks. Yoga sessions. The occasional mindfulness workshop offered to students who are too overwhelmed to attend.
These are interventions after the fact — responses to distress that has already occurred, offered by institutions that remain largely unchanged in the structural conditions that produced the distress in the first place.
This blog is not about those interventions. It is about what needs to change at a deeper level — what the happiness research actually shows Indian students need from their universities — and why building those conditions is not a welfare concession but the most important educational investment a university can make.
Before addressing solutions, it is necessary to face the reality directly.
India has one of the highest rates of student suicide in the world. The NCRB data — which almost certainly undercounts the true figure, given reporting gaps — documents thousands of student deaths by suicide annually. The states with the highest rates include Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh — states that are also home to some of the country’s most competitive educational institutions and examination systems.
The suicide data is the extreme end of a distribution that begins much earlier. Behind every death by suicide are thousands of students experiencing varying degrees of the same constellation of stressors: crushing academic pressure, social isolation, economic anxiety, family expectation, loss of identity, and an utter absence of the kind of support that would help them navigate any of it.
The Indian higher education context has several features that, in combination, create what mental health researchers would recognise as a nearly optimal environment for producing psychological distress.
Extreme competitive pressure. The entrance examination culture — JEE, NEET, CAT, UPSC — involves years of preparation for examinations where the difference between success and failure is measured in fractions of a mark, where competition is intense, and where failure carries enormous perceived consequences for the student’s entire future and their family’s aspirations.
Transition without support. Many students arrive at university — particularly elite institutions — having left their home states, their social networks, and their families for the first time. The transition is abrupt and largely unsupported. Institutions that are extraordinarily well-resourced in terms of academic infrastructure are typically extraordinarily poor in terms of the social and psychological infrastructure that helps young people navigate major life transitions.
Identity reorganisation without guidance. The late teens and early twenties — precisely the years of higher education — are the developmental period of greatest identity flux. Who am I? What do I actually value? What kind of person do I want to be? These are the questions that this period of life insistently raises. Most Indian universities have no structured way of helping students engage with them.
Social comparison on steroids. The combination of competitive academic environments and social media has created a context in which students are continuously exposed to curated evidence of their peers’ superior achievement, superior social lives, and superior apparent happiness. The happiness research on social comparison is unambiguous: it is one of the strongest predictors of unhappiness. Indian academic culture has produced social comparison conditions of unusual intensity.
Masculine norms that prohibit help-seeking. Male students — who represent a significant proportion of suicide statistics — operate in cultural contexts where emotional distress is associated with weakness and seeking help is associated with failure. The silence is not random. It is structured by specific cultural norms that the institutions reinforce by default.
This is the landscape. And counselling helplines, however important, do not change the landscape. They are umbrellas offered to people who are already wet, in the middle of a storm that could have been forecast.
The word “burnout” is often used loosely to describe tiredness or stress. It is worth being precise about what it actually means, because the precision matters for understanding both the problem and its solutions.
Burnout, as defined by psychologist Christina Maslach — whose research established the clinical framework — is characterised by three components: emotional exhaustion (the depletion of emotional resources), depersonalisation (a detached, cynical orientation toward one’s work and the people associated with it), and reduced sense of personal accomplishment (a declining sense that one’s efforts are producing meaningful results).
Burnout is not just about working too hard. It is about working in conditions that systematically undermine the psychological resources that sustained effort requires: autonomy, meaningful feedback, authentic connection, a sense of fairness, and a felt sense that what one is doing matters.
Indian students are particularly vulnerable to burnout because the conditions of their education systematically undermine almost all of these resources simultaneously.
Autonomy is near-absent in a system oriented almost entirely toward examination performance, where the content, pace, format, and evaluation criteria of learning are uniformly prescribed. Meaningful feedback is replaced by examination scores that tell students how they rank but nothing about how to grow. Authentic connection is difficult to maintain under conditions of intense competition, geographic displacement, and the social performance anxiety that comes with institutional prestige. A sense of fairness is undermined by the knowledge that outcomes depend heavily on preparation resources that are distributed profoundly unequally. And the sense that what one is doing matters is hard to sustain when the entire orientation of learning is toward passing the next test rather than understanding anything of genuine significance.
What Indian students are burning out from is not the difficulty of the work. It is the conditions in which the work is done. And those conditions are not incidental to the educational system — they are structural features of it.
The word “belonging” appears increasingly in discussions of student wellbeing, and it is worth being equally precise about what it means, because it is frequently conflated with friendliness or social niceness.
Belonging, in the psychological research sense, is the experience of being genuinely included in and valued by a community — of mattering to others and being known by them. Belonging is not the same as social activity. A student can attend multiple social events and still feel profoundly isolated. They can have hundreds of followers on social media and still experience the specific, painful form of loneliness that comes from not feeling genuinely known by anyone.
Research by Gregory Walton and Geoffrey Cohen at Stanford on belonging and academic performance has documented something remarkable: the experience of belonging — or its absence — has measurable and lasting effects on academic engagement, persistence, and outcomes.
In a series of landmark studies, Walton and Cohen showed that brief interventions designed to increase students’ sense of social belonging — particularly among students from marginalised or first-generation backgrounds — produced significant improvements in academic performance that persisted over years. The mechanism is not mysterious: students who feel they belong in an environment are more willing to persist through difficulty, more likely to seek help when they need it, and more able to maintain the kind of sustained engagement that genuine learning requires.
The Indian university context produces specific belonging challenges that are worth naming.
First-generation students — who may be the first in their families to attend higher education — often experience what researchers call “cultural mismatch”: a gap between the cultural norms and expectations of the institution and those of their home communities. This gap produces a specific form of disconnection that is invisible to those who have not experienced it and deeply alienating to those who have.
Students from non-Hindi-speaking states attending national institutions often navigate the additional challenge of language and cultural distance — performing academically in their second or third language while simultaneously navigating social environments where their cultural references are not shared.
Female students in many institutions navigate gendered expectations about appropriate ambition, appropriate social behaviour, and appropriate responses to difficulty that create specific forms of belonging-related pressure.
Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds — who may experience the economic reality of their situation as perpetually visible against the backdrop of more affluent peers — often carry a specific anxiety about not fully belonging to the community they have worked so hard to enter.
All of these specific forms of belonging challenge are addressable. None of them are being systematically addressed.
The happiness research on what produces genuine wellbeing in educational environments is remarkably consistent. And remarkably at odds with what most Indian universities currently provide.
The most important structural gap in Indian higher education is the absence of emotional wellbeing education as a formal, credit-bearing, academically serious subject.
Students arrive at university with sophisticated technical preparation — years of coaching in mathematics, science, and analytical reasoning — and virtually no preparation for managing the emotional realities of a demanding educational environment. They do not understand how their own minds work under stress. They do not have the vocabulary to name and work with their emotional experiences. They have not been taught to distinguish between the normal discomfort of genuine intellectual challenge and the pathological distress of burnout.
The Rekhi Foundation’s Science of Happiness Course — currently taught at over 50 universities across 6 countries, including IIT Kharagpur, IIM Lucknow, Amity University, and Delhi University — was specifically designed to fill this gap. It is not a workshop or a wellbeing programme. It is an academic course, assessed and credit-bearing, that takes the science of human flourishing as seriously as any other academic discipline.
Students who complete it learn the neuroscience of stress and emotional regulation — understanding why they feel what they feel and what the evidence shows about working with it. They learn mindfulness training not as a relaxation technique but as a cognitive skill with documented neurological effects. They learn gratitude practice not as forced positivity but as an attentional intervention with measurable wellbeing effects. They learn the science of social connection — why relationships are not a distraction from academic performance but one of its most reliable foundations.
And they learn something perhaps most important of all: that their inner life matters. That the quality of their own experience is not irrelevant to the purpose of their education but central to it.
Research by Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School — originally developed in the context of team performance — has become one of the most widely cited frameworks in educational psychology: the single strongest predictor of whether people learn well in any environment is psychological safety, the degree to which they feel they can take risks, make mistakes, ask questions, and be vulnerable without fear of humiliation or punishment.
Indian academic culture, in many institutions, is remarkably low in psychological safety. The combination of competitive ranking, public evaluation, hierarchical classroom dynamics, and cultural norms around intellectual authority creates environments in which the safest response to not understanding something is silence — precisely the opposite of what genuine learning requires.
Building psychological safety in Indian universities requires specific, deliberate changes in teaching practice: professors who model intellectual humility and acknowledge the boundaries of their own knowledge, assessment systems that reward genuine engagement rather than performance of certainty, classroom cultures where wrong answers are treated as learning opportunities rather than occasions for embarrassment.
This is not soft. It is the structural prerequisite for the kind of genuine intellectual engagement that universities claim to cultivate.
The happiness research finding that relationship quality is the single strongest predictor of wellbeing — confirmed by the Harvard Study of Adult Development across 85 years of longitudinal research — has direct implications for how universities design the social experience of their students.
Most Indian universities are extraordinarily poor at this. The social infrastructure — the structured opportunities for students to move from acquaintance to genuine friendship, from shared proximity to mutual knowledge and care — is largely absent. Hostels house students together without creating the conditions for the kind of authentic connection that proximity alone does not produce.
What would it look like to take seriously the research finding that genuine friendship is among the most important things a student can develop during their university years — more important for long-term wellbeing than their academic rank?
It would look like structured mentoring relationships. Small discussion groups that meet regularly. Residential communities designed around shared interest rather than random assignment. Formal acknowledgement that the social development of students is an institutional responsibility rather than a private matter.
It would look like universities that take the moai of Okinawan ikigai tradition — the tight-knit mutual support network that accompanies individuals through life — seriously as an educational design principle.
Self-determination theory — one of the most comprehensive psychological accounts of motivation and wellbeing — identifies autonomy as one of three foundational psychological needs essential to genuine flourishing. Autonomy is not the absence of challenge or structure. It is the experience of freely chosen action — of engaging with one’s education because one has genuinely chosen to, rather than because external pressure leaves no alternative.
The autonomy deficit in Indian higher education is acute. Students experience the content, pace, format, and evaluation of their learning as almost entirely externally prescribed. The result — as self-determination theory directly predicts — is that learning becomes motivated primarily by the avoidance of negative outcomes (failure, shame, family disappointment) rather than genuine curiosity or interest.
Extrinsically motivated learning is less effective, less durable, and less satisfying than intrinsically motivated learning. Students learn less, retain less, and find it less meaningful. And — critically for the wellbeing argument — they experience the process as more depleting and less sustaining.
Building more autonomy into Indian higher education does not require abolishing structure. It requires creating meaningful choices within structure: options in what to study and how, assessment formats that allow different kinds of demonstration of understanding, projects that connect academic work to genuine questions that the student actually cares about.
Research by William Damon at Stanford on the role of purpose in adolescent and young adult development shows that young people with a clear sense of meaning — of why their lives and activities matter — show dramatically greater resilience, academic engagement, and wellbeing than those without.
Indian universities, with few exceptions, have no systematic way of helping students develop this sense of meaning. The academic programme is entirely oriented toward competence and credential. The question of what the competence and credential are ultimately for — what kind of person and what kind of contribution the student is working toward — is left entirely to chance.
A university that took the research seriously would build structured opportunities for students to engage with these questions: mentored conversations about values and aspirations, exposure to diverse models of meaningful professional and civic life, community engagement that connects academic work to real-world problems of genuine significance.
This is what the Rekhi Foundation’s emotional wellbeing education approach embeds in the Science of Happiness Course: not just the science of wellbeing as abstract knowledge, but the application of that knowledge to the specific, individual question of what each student’s own life is for.
The research by Walton and Cohen on belonging is worth examining in more detail, because the magnitude of the effect they found is surprising — and because it points toward interventions that are simpler and more accessible than most universities assume.
In their studies, first-year students who completed a brief intervention — reading narratives from senior students describing how they had initially felt like they didn’t belong and gradually come to feel at home — showed significantly better academic outcomes than control groups over the following years. The effect was particularly pronounced for students from marginalised backgrounds.
What produced this effect? Not a counselling programme, not additional academic support, not a wellbeing workshop. What produced it was normalisation: the knowledge that the experience of not feeling like you belong is common, temporary, and does not reflect any fixed truth about whether you deserve to be there.
The most powerful belonging intervention available to Indian universities may be the simplest: creating structured opportunities for senior students to speak honestly, to first-year students, about their own experiences of difficulty, uncertainty, and gradual adaptation.
Not success stories. Struggle stories. The honest accounts of people who felt exactly what the incoming student is feeling — and who are still here, still engaged, still finding meaning in what they are doing.
This costs almost nothing. It requires no infrastructure. And the evidence suggests it works.
Everything described in this article — emotional wellbeing education as curriculum, psychological safety in teaching, social infrastructure for genuine connection, autonomy in learning, explicit attention to meaning and purpose — requires something from institutions that institutional cultures are structurally resistant to providing.
It requires taking the inner life of students seriously as an educational responsibility.
This is a significant ask. Indian universities — like most universities globally — are organised around the transmission of knowledge and the production of credentialled graduates. The inner lives of students are, structurally, not their business.
But this position is increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of the data. When 60% of your students are experiencing significant anxiety symptoms. When thousands of young people are dying by suicide in educational contexts every year. When the graduates you are producing are technically competent and emotionally depleted. When the research shows clearly that the conditions that produce genuine wellbeing are also the conditions that produce genuine learning — that psychological safety, belonging, autonomy, and meaning are not distractions from the educational mission but its necessary foundations.
The university that takes this seriously is not making a welfare concession. It is making an educational investment.
It is recognising that the most important thing it can produce is not graduates who can pass examinations. It is graduates who have the psychological resources to build lives and careers and communities that matter — who have the resilience to sustain effort under difficulty, the emotional intelligence to collaborate and lead effectively, the sense of purpose to persist through the inevitable failures of any significant endeavour.
The student at 2 AM in the library is not the problem. The library at 2 AM — the culture that produced it, the institutional values it reflects, the structural conditions it reveals — is the problem.
And changing that is not a counselling task. It is an educational one.
The Rekhi Foundation for Happiness has been working toward exactly this change since 2016 — not through advocacy alone but through the systematic building of the infrastructure for emotional wellbeing education within Indian universities.
The Science of Happiness Course at IIT Kharagpur, IIM Lucknow, Amity University, Delhi University, and dozens of other institutions is evidence that this curriculum can be taught academically, assessed rigorously, and received by students not as a break from their real education but as some of the most significant work they do during their university years.
The MindLab technology deployed in Rekhi Foundation partner institutions provides biofeedback-based measurement that converts wellbeing from an intangible aspiration into a measurable, trackable, evidence-based academic outcome.
And the Foundation’s research partnerships — with IIT Kharagpur, IIM Lucknow, Harvard Medical School, and institutions across six countries — are building the evidence base that makes the case for emotional wellbeing education in the language that institutional decision-makers understand: rigorous, peer-reviewed, outcome-measured research.
The goal is not to make Indian universities gentler. It is to make them better — to build the conditions in which genuine human flourishing is possible alongside genuine academic excellence, rather than in permanent opposition to it.
Because those two things are not opposites.
The research has been saying so for decades.
It is time for the institutions to listen.
The mental health crisis among Indian students reflects the intersection of several structural features of the Indian educational environment. Extreme competitive pressure — particularly the entrance examination culture — places enormous stakes on performance over years of preparation. The transition to higher education involves geographic displacement and loss of social support networks without adequate institutional support for the adjustment. Academic environments are typically low in psychological safety, making it difficult to seek help or admit difficulty. Social comparison — amplified by social media in already competitive environments — is a particularly strong driver of unhappiness. And cultural norms, particularly around masculinity and achievement, create specific barriers to help-seeking. The happiness research is consistent: chronic conditions of low autonomy, weak social connection, absent meaningful feedback, and cultural suppression of vulnerability are precisely the conditions that produce burnout, anxiety, and depression. These are not individual failures. They are structural outcomes — and they require structural responses rather than individual-level interventions.
Counselling services are intervention — they help students who are already experiencing significant distress. Emotional wellbeing education is prevention — it equips all students with the knowledge, skills, and practices that enable them to maintain psychological health before crisis occurs. The distinction is analogous to the difference between treating disease and teaching nutrition: both are necessary, but only one addresses the underlying deficit. Emotional wellbeing education — as delivered through the Rekhi Foundation's Science of Happiness Course — teaches students the neuroscience of stress and emotional regulation, mindfulness training as a cognitive skill, gratitude practice as an attentional intervention, and the research on social connection and meaning. Students who understand how their own minds work under stress, and who have practised evidence-based strategies for maintaining their wellbeing, are substantially less likely to reach the crisis point that counselling is designed to address. Expanding counselling services without changing the structural conditions that produce distress is treating symptoms while the cause continues to operate.
Belonging, in the psychological research sense, is the experience of being genuinely valued and included in a community — of mattering to others and feeling genuinely known. It is not the same as social activity or friendliness. Research by Gregory Walton and Geoffrey Cohen at Stanford demonstrated that students' sense of belonging — or its absence — has measurable and lasting effects on academic performance, persistence, and willingness to seek help. Students who feel they belong are more willing to persist through difficulty, more likely to engage genuinely with academic work, and more able to access the psychological resources that challenging learning requires. Indian universities produce specific belonging challenges: first-generation students navigating cultural mismatch, students from non-Hindi-speaking states managing language and cultural distance, female students navigating gendered expectations, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds experiencing the visibility of material difference. All of these are addressable — and the research suggests that relatively simple interventions, including structured peer mentoring and normalisation of belonging uncertainty, can produce significant improvements in both wellbeing and academic outcomes.
The premise of this question — that academic rigour and student wellbeing are in tension — is itself one of the most consequential misconceptions in Indian higher education. The happiness research consistently shows the opposite: the conditions that support genuine wellbeing are also the conditions that support genuine learning. Psychological safety — the freedom to take risks, ask questions, and make mistakes without fear of humiliation — is simultaneously the primary condition for belonging and the primary condition for intellectual growth. Autonomy in learning — the experience of genuinely chosen engagement with one's education — is simultaneously a wellbeing need and the most reliable foundation for intrinsic motivation and deep understanding. Meaningful social connection is simultaneously protective of mental health and predictive of collaborative capability and professional effectiveness. The Rekhi Foundation's experience across 50+ university partnerships confirms what the research predicts: students who engage with the Science of Happiness Course report not just lower anxiety and greater life satisfaction, but more authentic academic engagement and greater clarity about their own values and goals. Wellbeing and rigour are not alternatives. Wellbeing is the foundation on which rigour becomes possible.
While systemic change is necessary, individual students can take meaningful actions grounded in the happiness research. Building genuine social connection — investing deliberately in two or three authentic friendships rather than maintaining a large surface-level social network — is the most impactful single action, given the research finding that relationship quality is the strongest predictor of wellbeing. Practising mindfulness training — even in the brief, informal forms discussed in our blog on mindfulness for people who hate sitting still — builds the emotional regulation capacity that demanding environments require. Engaging in gratitude practice — identifying one specific good thing from each day — counteracts the negativity bias that competitive environments amplify. Seeking out emotional wellbeing education — including the resources available through the Rekhi Foundation's programmes and the freely accessible research at the Greater Good Science Center (greatergood.berkeley.edu) — builds the self-understanding that is the foundation of psychological resilience. And perhaps most importantly: recognising that the experience of struggling is not evidence of inadequacy. It is the entirely predictable response of a human being to genuinely difficult conditions. The research is unambiguous: struggling under the conditions that Indian higher education creates is not a personal failure. It is a structural outcome — and you deserve better than the structure is currently providing.
Rekhi Foundation, founded in 2016, promotes Happiness Science via university centers, collaborating globally across six countries.
Table of Contents
6/79, S/F, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005, INDIA
2051, Last Chance Court, Gold River, CA 95670, USA
