University Rankings and India’s Quest to be a Vishwaguru

For centuries, India has been a beacon of knowledge, spirituality, and intellectual inquiry. From the ancient universities of Takshashila, Nalanda, and Vikramshila to the philosophical traditions of Vedanta, Buddhism, and Sikhism, India has historically played the role of a Vishwaguru – a teacher to the world. Today, as India aspires to reclaim that status, its universities are central to this mission. However, the prevailing systems of university rankings – internationally and domestically – seem misaligned with the vision of India as a Vishwaguru. They prioritise narrow, quantifiable indicators while neglecting the broader, holistic role of universities in cultivating knowledge, values, and societal well-being. There is a need to examine the contradictions between ranking systems and India’s civilisational mission, and the need to identify universities with potential to lead the Vishwaguru mission, and suggest reforms to align evaluation mechanisms with India’s unique aspirations.

The Purpose of University Rankings

University rankings originated with the intention of providing students, parents, policymakers, and institutions with comparative information. At their best, rankings can:

1. Help students choose universities that align with their career or research goals.
2. Provide governments with benchmarks for investment in higher education.
3. Offer institutions feedback to identify gaps in their performance.
4. Encourage healthy competition among universities.

In theory, rankings could spotlight excellence and inspire universities to enhance their teaching, research, and community engagement. For a country like India, they could also help identify institutions capable of leading the nation’s Vishwagurumission.

The Methodology of Current Ranking Systems

Yet, the reality of how rankings operate today is troubling. There are more than 150 ranking systems globally, each with its own formula. The two most influential – QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education (THE) Rankings – are commercial enterprises. Their methodologies emphasise indicators such as:

• Number of publications in indexed journals.
• Citations per faculty.
• International collaborations.
• Faculty-student ratio.
• Industry income and research funding.
• Graduate employability, often measured by salary packages.

India’s own National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), introduced in 2015, was a promising step toward developing contextually relevant metrics. Unfortunately, NIRF has largely mirrored global models, focusing on quantitative indicators such as research output, graduation outcomes, outreach, and perceptions.

The problem is not with measurement itself, but with what is being measured – and what is ignored.

Are Rankings Measuring What Matters?

Ranking systems today are guilty of “valuing what they measure instead of measuring what is of value.” The obsession with numbers reduces education to economic utility: publications become more important than ideas, salaries more important than skills, and collaborations more important than community impact.

But the true purpose of education is broader. A university is not merely a factory producing employable graduates or industry-ready patents. It is a crucible of knowledge, values, critical thinking, creativity, and ethical leadership.

Unfortunately, none of the global or Indian rankings adequately consider:

• Value addition to students: the actual intellectual and personal growth students undergo.
• Teaching quality: the ability of faculty to mentor, inspire, and cultivate curiosity.
• Academic freedom: the space for dissent, debate, and free inquiry.
• Social responsibility: contributions to local communities, nation-building, and sustainable development.
• Cultural and ethical values: preparing students to be compassionate, ethical citizens, not just economic actors.

In their neglect of these dimensions, rankings undermine the very qualities India needs to emerge as a Vishwaguru.

The Vishwaguru Vision

India’s aspiration to be a Vishwaguru is not about being the largest exporter of degrees or the biggest factory of engineers. It is about offering the world a model of education rooted in holistic development – combining intellectual rigour, moral responsibility, cultural richness, and societal relevance.

Historically, Indian universities like Nalanda attracted students not just because of scholarly excellence but because of their holistic environment: interdisciplinary learning, integration of philosophy and science, spiritual training, inclusivity, and emphasis on societal well-being. Knowledge was not divorced from ethics or society.

In today’s context, being a Vishwaguru means producing graduates who are not only skilled professionals but also thoughtful citizens, empathetic leaders, and guardians of sustainable futures. It means nurturing universities that are spaces of dialogue, creativity, innovation, and ethical reflection.

Identifying Universities for the Vishwaguru Mission

Some Indian institutions already exhibit the potential to lead this mission, though they rarely top global rankings. These include:

• Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)– strong in social responsibility, policy, and community engagement.
• Indian Institute of Science (IISc)and select IITs – leaders in scientific research, though often too narrowly technocratic.
• Ashoka University, Azim Premji University, O P Jindal Global University– private institutions experimenting with liberal arts, interdisciplinary education, and ethical leadership.

These universities, with the right support, could evolve into models of the libertarian university that India needs – institutions committed not only to research and employability but to creating citizens who embody India’s civilisational values.

The Libertarian University: A Counterpoint

The libertarian university – contrary to neoliberal models of education that equate education with  economic productivity – views itself not as a business enterprise but as a public good. Its operational philosophy includes:

• Nurturing critical thinking and intellectual freedom.
• Fostering creativity and curiosity beyond narrow disciplines.
• Promoting social justice, equity, and inclusion.
• Engaging with local and global communities to solve real problems.
• Producing knowledgeable citizens with societal values, not just job-ready workers.

If India is serious about its Vishwaguru mission, it must encourage universities to embody these ideals.

Do Current Rankings Capture This Spirit?

Unfortunately, the current ranking systems do not capture the spirit of a libertarian university. Let us examine:

• Academic Freedom: Rankings do not evaluate whether universities encourage dissent, dialogue, and debate – the lifeblood of critical scholarship.
• Societal Impact: No ranking assesses how universities address local challenges, empower marginalised communities, or promote ethical practices.
• Holistic Education: Rankings reduce students to employability statistics, ignoring the transformative impact of liberal arts, humanities, and value-based education.
• Cultural Leadership: No metric evaluates how universities preserve, transmit, and innovate upon cultural and civilisational knowledge systems.

In effect, rankings reward universities that resemble global corporate models, not those that serve as Vishwagurus.

What Can Be Done?

To reconcile rankings with India’s Vishwaguru mission, multiple steps are needed:

1. Reform NIRF Metrics: India must evolve its own ranking framework rooted in its civilisational vision. New indicators could include:

1. • Student value addition and holistic development.
   • Teaching quality and mentoring effectiveness.
   • Contribution to local communities and national development.
   • Promotion of ethical, cultural, and societal values.
   • Academic freedom and openness to debate.

1. Contextual Rankings: Instead of imitating QS or THE, India should develop contextual rankings that capture universities’ role in producing responsible citizens.
2. Encourage Plurality of Excellence: Recognise that not all universities must chase global research output; some may specialise in liberal arts, social sciences, community service, or vocational education.
3. Celebrate Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Universities should be rewarded for engaging with Vedic Studies to include Ayurveda, Yoga, Indian philosophy; Sanskrit, Gandhian thought, Sikh Studies and other indigenous knowledge streams.
4. Global Dialogue on New Metrics: India, along with other Global South countries, should initiate a conversation on reimagining global university rankings to reflect diversity in missions and contexts.
5. Strengthen University Autonomy: Only when universities enjoy genuine academic freedom can they fulfill their libertarian potential.

Conclusion

India’s quest to become a Vishwaguru is noble and timely, but it cannot be realised through conformity to existing university ranking systems. These rankings – dominated by commercial interests and neoliberal metrics – reward universities for producing market-ready graduates and high-volume research, while ignoring the deeper role of education in shaping values, ethics, and societal well-being.

For India, the path to Vishwaguru status lies not in climbing QS or THE ladders but in nurturing universities that embody its civilisational ideals: holistic education, academic freedom, societal responsibility, and cultural leadership. The challenge, then, is to create ranking systems that measure what truly matters – what contributes to the making of thoughtful, ethical, and compassionate citizens who can guide not just India but the world.

Universities are not merely sites of knowledge production; they are sanctuaries of wisdom. If India can reimagine its universities as libertarian institutions serving humanity and not just markets, it can indeed reclaim its ancient role as a Vishwaguru.