By Dr Bhushan Patwardhan
India’s higher education system is at an important turning point. International rankings now influence how universities plan, how the public judges them, and even how policy discussions are framed. A rise in global league tables is often taken as proof of progress. But this view hides a deeper concern. A small group of global ranking agencies, run as commercial enterprises, now plays a large role in defining what counts as “quality.” When government representatives attend their events or publicly acknowledge their exercises, institutions read it as a signal. They begin adjusting themselves to fit measures they did not design and do not control. This shift has consequences.
The ranking race
The primary purpose of assessment, accreditation, and ranking must be to improve the quality of education and ensure transparency, not to serve as tools for marketing or branding. Over time, rankings have moved from being reference tools to becoming competitive arenas. Institutions track each other’s positions. Social media amplifies minor movements. Questions are asked when a university rises or falls. Pressure builds quietly. Universities begin to plan around ranking indicators. Publication volume becomes a strategy. International collaborations are sometimes pursued for visibility rather than academic depth. Reputation surveys gain importance. Resources shift toward improving measurable metrics. Global ranking systems also place heavy emphasis on STEM indicators, while the humanities and social sciences receive far less weight. Models of liberal education shaped largely by Western traditions dominate these frameworks, leaving limited recognition for India’s own intellectual heritage and cultural strengths.
In such an environment, anxiety grows. Institutions worry about slipping. They become sensitive to image. Some feel compelled to demonstrate innovation quickly, even when internal systems are still evolving. The recent controversy around the display of a robotic dog as a symbol of technological strength showed how easily appearance can replace substance when visibility becomes urgent. The problem is not competition. Competition can be healthy. The problem arises when the rules of competition are shaped outside the system and do not fully reflect national priorities. Escaping this race requires strengthening our own foundations.
Reimagining assessment, accreditation and rankingThe NAAC White Paper on “reimagining” calls for rethinking how India assesses and ranks its institutions. Assessment, accreditation, and ranking must work together as a coherent system. They must be transparent, based on reliable data, and aligned with national goals. NAAC evaluates institutions as a whole. It looks at governance, teaching processes, research environment, outreach, and internal systems. The NBA focuses on programmes, especially in professional education. It checks whether courses actually produce the skills and competencies they promise. NIRF provides national comparison using a defined method that includes research, teaching, inclusion, outreach, and limited perception indicators. These bodies serve different but connected roles: institutional quality, programme accountability, and benchmarking. Together they form India’s quality architecture.
The White Paper makes clear that this architecture must improve. Accreditation must focus on outcomes, not paperwork. Data must be accurate and accessible. Institutions must have autonomy, but also accountability. If this system becomes strong and credible, international recognition will follow naturally. It should come from the strength of our methods, not from chasing external approval.
For this to happen, we must complete unfinished reforms. “One Nation One Data” has been discussed for years. It is overdue to be actually constructed and implemented. Without a unified and reliable higher education data system, no accreditation or ranking framework can command trust. The National Education Policy 2020 must be implemented fully, in letter and spirit. Multidisciplinary reform, research integration, academic flexibility, faculty development, and governance reform are essential. Accreditation cannot compensate for weak governance. Autonomy must go hand in hand with transparency and accountability.
The discontinuation of the UGC-CARE journal list was a backward step. CARE was created to protect academic evaluation from predatory publishing and to support Indian knowledge systems and regional-language scholarship often excluded from global databases. Its removal left a gap. In its absence, institutions depend more on predatory sources. This weakens our ability to set and defend our own standards.
A developed nation does not outsource academic credibility. It strengthens its own institutions and engages globally from a position of confidence. If NAAC becomes a stronger and more modern accreditation body, if NBA deepens outcome-based programme review, and if NIRF improves its methods and data systems, India can move from being judged by others to helping define how quality is judged. The ranking race feeds on insecurity. Strong domestic systems reduce that insecurity. The real measure of Viksit Bharat in 2047 will be the strength of our own standards, clear, fair, credible, and respected beyond our borders.
BOX: Points of concern
- Output rising faster than impact
Research output has expanded rapidly, while citation impact has grown more slowly, indicating incentives that reward volume over influence. - Absence of a national quality filter
The discontinuation of UGC-CARE removed India’s only publicly governed journal screening mechanism, increasing reliance on commercial indexing systems. - Rising retractions and residual effects
Retraction rates have increased, and journals later removed for publication concerns continue to generate citations used in evaluations and rankings. - Indexing no longer a reliable proxy
Some databases once seen as quality filters now include poor-quality journals, making indexing alone an unreliable measure of rigor. - Design bias in rankings
Global ranking systems give substantial weight to reputation and visibility, while teaching quality and societal contribution receive limited emphasis.
These patterns do not reflect lack of capability. They reveal incentives that need correction.
Dr Bhushan Patwardhan is Former Vice Chairman UGC and Chairman EC NAAC.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
