Last Monday, when the Ministry of Education informed the Lok Sabha that the number of Indian institutions in the QS World University Rankings had jumped from 11 in 2015 to 52 in 2027, it was hailed as a big achievement. Of course, a fivefold increase in global representation is proof that policy initiatives, data compliance, and institutional push are working.
But behind this achievement lies a harsh reality – sheer headcount and global academic excellence are two different things. If we treat ‘11 to 52’ as a victory, we risk celebrating a metric that masks stagnation in the higher education system, a widening intra-national divide, and a gap between ranking optimisation and real-world outcomes.
Top-tier stagnation
A closer look at these 52 institutes reveals that almost all gains have occurred in the lower tiers – the 500-1,500 rank band. India doesn’t have a single university in the global top 50, and only two in the top 150 – IIT Delhi at 118 and IIT Bombay at 134. Furthermore, there are only 11 Indian institutes in the top 500. Contrast this with East Asia, China, and Singapore, which now boast six universities in the global top 20 alone.
Academic leaders argue it’s time India pivots from tracking headcount to providing long-term research backing.
“For better global visibility, the first priority is predictable, competitive funding for 7-10 years in areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, clean energy, advanced materials and healthcare,” says Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, chairman, Board of Governors, IIM Calcutta, and former chairman of the UGC. “It should support the full research ecosystem, including shared laboratories, maintenance, research engineers, doctoral scholars, postdoctoral fellows, and professional research management.”
Prof Kumar emphasises that breaking into the upper echelons requires global integration and industry synergy: “A global talent programme can help institutes recruit outstanding faculty from India and abroad. International doctoral scholarships, faculty exchanges, and long-term research partnerships would further strengthen knowledge creation. Indian industry can co-fund translational research centres that maintain academic independence. Promising discoveries can then move towards prototypes, patents, and start-ups.”
India’s public universities
Because QS heavily weights metrics like citations per faculty and internationalisation, our public universities, which educate the vast majority of Indian students, are disadvantaged, and our best – University of Delhi (322nd rank) and JNU (555th) – aren’t competitive globally.
Celebrating 52 ranked entities – dominated by IITs, IISc, and deep-pocketed private players such as Lovely Professional University or Saveetha Institute – distracts from the reality that state and central public universities lack the basic infrastructure required to compete globally.
In addition, even among the highly-ranked private universities that have aggressively entered QS, a disconnect exists between ranking metrics and student outcomes. While these private universities score well on institutional visibility, sustainability criteria, and paper submissions, many fail the market salary test – offering graduate placement packages that lag significantly behind their international rank standing (see our story “Why India’s ‘world-ranked’ private universities are failing the salary test”; tinyurl.com/2habu8rz).
“India’s rise from 11 institutions to 52 is encouraging, but it is important to look beyond the headline number,” notes Ashok Varma, partner, Inclusion Ecosystem at Grant Thornton Bharat. “As the world’s second largest higher education ecosystem, greater representation in global rankings is a natural outcome of expansion, stronger institutional participation, and improved alignment with international benchmarking frameworks. But it should be viewed as a milestone in a longer journey rather than a definitive measure of global competitiveness.”
Varma emphasises that the core challenge remains unresolved: “The bigger question is whether this growing representation is translating into a stronger presence at the very top of the rankings. While India has made notable progress, building globally competitive universities requires sustained investment in research quality, international collaborations, faculty excellence, and stronger industry-academia partnerships. Attracting international students, faculty and researchers at scale, alongside strengthening global research partnerships, is an opportunity area for many institutions. Equally, institutional readiness, leadership, industry engagement, and employability outcomes will play a big role in translating scale into global reputation.”
The true benchmark
Ultimately, the government’s focus on expanding the headcount from 11 to 52 risks creating a false sense of security. A higher education strategy that celebrates lower-band inclusion while ignoring top-50 stagnation and public university decline is fundamentally flawed.
As Prof Jagadesh Kumar points out, rankings should be the byproduct of academic strength, not the sole metric of policy success. “Reaching the top 50 world university rankings shouldn’t be the only goal,” Prof Kumar says. “Success must also mean better teaching, influential research, useful technology, well-prepared graduates, and national benefit. With long-term funding, transparent review, and clear institutional plans, higher rankings can naturally follow from stronger universities.”
Until India can nurture institutions that consistently challenge the world’s top 50 while elevating the baseline quality of its public universities, expanding the QS headcount remains a vanity exercise.