Australia already has evidence that its South Asian graduates can strengthen public institutions and bilateral relationships. The challenge is to turn those connections into lasting, two-way partnerships rather than allowing them to fade after graduation.
In my work representing an Australian education provider from Kathmandu, conversations with recruitment partners naturally revolve around what happens before a student leaves: course suitability, costs, documentation and whether the plan is realistic. Yet I keep coming back to a different question. What happens to the relationship between Australia and that student five or ten years after graduation?
A graduate might become a researcher, public servant or business leader. They may keep Australian friendships and professional contacts, or lose touch entirely. I cannot claim that the conversations I hear across South Asia tell us what every graduate does. They do, however, make me think we spend much more time discussing entry into Australian education than the relationships that follow it.
A Revealing Finding from Nepal
There is a concrete example of why the second half of this story matters. A 2017 Australian Government case study of nine Nepalese alumni who completed development scholarships between the late 1980s and mid-1990s documented contributions to public administration and health, including cervical cancer screening and awareness for rural women and evidence-based population planning. These are not merely pleasant alumni memories; they are examples of skills acquired through education finding public value at home.
The same study reported something less comfortable: some professional networks that had supported earlier Australia–Nepal collaboration had faded as alumni retired. That is the policy problem worth examining. Scholarships can help create enduring connections, but their durability should not be assumed. The study was small and cannot establish outcomes for all Nepali graduates. Its warning about relationships weakening over time is nonetheless difficult to ignore.
The evidence here concerns scholarship recipients, not all international students. But the underlying question extends to self-funded graduates too: what opportunities exist for them to maintain professional links with Australia? Their pathways and obligations differ, so their outcomes should be studied rather than assumed to match those of Australia Awards alumni.
Australia Is Not Starting from Zero
Australia already treats education as part of diplomacy. The Australia Awards South Asia and Mongolia alumni program reports more than 9,000 alumni across eight countries. In Nepal, the Australian Government describes the Awards as a means of supporting local development and people-to-people links.
India offers another model. Australia’s education strategy for India explicitly connects learning with research, mobility, employability and institutional partnerships. The Maitri grants program supports cooperation in education, culture, research and business. These initiatives demonstrate that Canberra understands education can be a strategic relationship, not simply an export.
There is also a clear Australian interest in keeping these connections active: trusted professional networks can support joint research, practical cooperation and resilient bilateral ties. In October 2026, Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced additional support for Nepal’s flood recovery and resilience while emphasising the countries’ education, development and people-to-people links. Sustained alumni partnerships could give those shared priorities practical continuity beyond a single announcement or project.
The question is how to build on what exists without pretending the same program will work everywhere. India’s scale and bilateral architecture differ from Nepal’s. Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own institutions, policy priorities and alumni communities. A regional ambition needs country-specific partnerships, developed with local institutions rather than designed entirely in Canberra.
Make the Connections Useful
I would start with a practical shift: organising alumni engagement around problems that both sides want to solve. In Nepal, that could mean bringing graduates of Australian institutions together with universities, local government, researchers and employers to work on climate resilience, public health or skills development. The point would be to create a reason to collaborate after the reception ends.
This need not duplicate existing Australia Awards activities. Alumni small grants and networking support already exist in parts of the program. The additional value would come from longer-term follow-up, participation by interested self-funded graduates alongside scholarship alumni where appropriate, and more direct collaboration with Australian universities and professional bodies. Small, competitive grants could support joint workshops, research pilots or professional exchanges, provided South Asian partners help choose priorities and evaluate results.
Not every project would succeed. But a modest project with clear ownership, deliverables and follow-up can be more useful than a large event counted only by attendance. Australian universities could connect alumni offices with research teams and international partnership staff, then ask graduates where cooperation is possible and what prevents it. A graduate who understands both an Australian institution and a South Asian workplace can identify practical barriers that a memorandum of understanding may never reveal.
There should be room for disagreement. Alumni should not be expected to act as unpaid marketers or diplomatic representatives. Some may have critical views of their Australian experience. Listening to those views is part of building a credible partnership, not a threat to it.
Measure Relationships, Not Receptions
Success would need a different set of measures: joint projects still operating after two years; research or professional exchanges that lead to continued work; partnerships that survive changes in personnel; and evidence that local organisations benefit. Alumni participation figures remain useful, but they cannot substitute for outcomes. Australia’s Global Tracer Facility demonstrates that longer-term alumni outcomes can be studied; a broader approach could test which forms of cooperation endure.
Nor should education diplomacy be confused with an argument for weakening visa integrity safeguards. Australia has legitimate reasons to regulate migration and education quality. My point is narrower: a student visa decision is one stage in a relationship that may later matter to both countries. A sound foreign policy should pay attention to the years beyond it.
From Kathmandu, the temptation is to view Australian education through the immediate decisions families face. Those decisions matter deeply. But the longer view offers another test of success: whether a qualification becomes the beginning of cooperation rather than the end of a transaction.
Australia has already invested in people who can connect its institutions with South Asia. The next step is not another slogan about soft power. It is to maintain the relationships, share ownership with regional partners and give graduates practical opportunities to work together.
Mukesh Dhamala is Regional Director at NAPS Australia, based in Kathmandu, Nepal. He has more than a decade of experience in international education, working with recruitment partners and counselling teams across South Asia. He writes in a personal capacity.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.
Photo: “Tribhuvan University” by Ingmar Zahorsky, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
