In the realm of self-assessment, human nature often leans toward optimism and self-preservation. Imagine a classroom scenario where a student is tasked with grading their own exam paper and ranking themselves among peers. Invariably, the student would inflate their scores, downplay errors, and position themselves at the top, avoiding any admission of shortcomings. No one voluntarily ranks themselves lower than others; it’s a psychological safeguard against criticism. This analogy mirrors a troubling pattern in India’s governance and policy-making over recent years. When international rankings on critical metrics like health, poverty, corruption, equality, justice, human rights, human development, and education paint an unflattering picture, the response has been to deny, deflect, and ultimately devise indigenous alternatives. These self-created indices serve as a veneer of progress, masking underlying issues while projecting an illusion of excellence. The latest manifestation of this trend is India’s decision to reject global Air Quality Index (AQI) rankings and launch its own system, a move that underscores a broader strategy of narrative control. As we delve deeper, it’s evident that this approach prioritizes optics over outcomes, potentially endangering public welfare and eroding trust in institutional transparency.
The roots of this behavior can be traced to a post-colonial mindset intertwined with modern nationalism. India, having emerged from centuries of foreign domination, has cultivated a fierce sense of sovereignty. However, this has sometimes translated into an aversion to external scrutiny. International bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Transparency International, and others employ rigorous, standardized methodologies to evaluate countries. These assessments are data-driven, peer-reviewed, and comparative, providing a global benchmark. Yet, when India’s performance lags—often due to systemic challenges like inequality, bureaucratic inefficiencies, or policy gaps—the government opts for self-ranking. This not only questions the credibility of global standards but also creates parallel realities where domestic metrics conveniently show improvement. The consequences are profound: while paper victories abound, real-world problems persist, affecting millions. Transparency, a cornerstone of democracy, suffers as data manipulation or selective reporting becomes normalized. In a nation of 1.4 billion, where accountability is already strained, this trend risks fostering complacency among policymakers and disillusionment among citizens.
A poignant example is the recent controversy surrounding air quality rankings. In December 2025, the Indian government explicitly stated that it sets its own air quality standards and does not recognize global rankings as official. Environment Minister emphasized that no international authority officially ranks countries on air quality, and India conducts its annual Swachh Vayu Survekshan to assess urban air quality improvements. This came amid reports highlighting India’s dominance in lists of the world’s most polluted cities, with 74 of the top 100 in 2024 being Indian, including Byrnihat in Meghalaya as the most polluted. Critics argue that rejecting benchmarks from organizations like IQAir or the WHO could weaken safeguards, as pollution levels remain extreme despite claims of AQI improvement from 213 in 2018 to 187 in 2025. The new domestic ranking system is poised to portray cities as cleaner on paper, potentially ignoring ground realities like vehicular emissions, industrial pollution, and stubble burning. What an ingenious idea, as the original text quips—”What an idea sir ji!”—to etch India on the world map as “clean” with low AQI, but this illusion, viewed through government lenses, won’t mitigate health crises. Respiratory diseases, premature deaths, and economic losses from pollution will continue unabated, while official narratives celebrate fabricated successes [1,2,3].
This pattern is not isolated. In education, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015, emerged as India’s response to underwhelming positions in global rankings like QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE), and US News. When prestigious Indian institutes like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) failed to crack the top tiers internationally, NIRF provided a domestic alternative, emphasizing parameters tailored to local contexts. However, NIRF has been plagued by allegations of fraud and manipulation since its inception. Reports from 2025 highlight a “crisis” in research fraud, with retractions from India surging 2.5 times between 2020-2022 compared to 2017-2019, often linked to NIRF pressures. Top scientists have flagged corruption, urging an overhaul due to unethical practices like fake citations and low-quality publications. In NIRF 2025, penalties for retracted papers were introduced, impacting institutions like Anna University and Saveetha Dental College, yet some still improved ranks amid scrutiny. Negative marking for dishonesty is now being implemented to curb this. Government-funded institutes often receive favorable rankings to preserve prestige, while private universities, allegedly through financial influence, leapfrog established ones despite inferior research quality [4,5,6,7].
Compounding this are scandals in the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which accredits institutions. In 2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested NAAC team members and university officials in bribery cases, leading to NAAC removing over 1,200 assessors—one-fifth of its pool—and purging 900 more. A high-profile case involved Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational Foundation (KLEF) in Guntur, where bribes, including cash, gold, and laptops, were paid for higher grades, resulting in the university’s five-year debarment. These incidents reveal a pay-to-play system where money trumps merit [8,9,10,11].
Comparing NIRF with global rankings exposes discrepancies. In NIRF 2025, IIT Madras tops overall, followed by IISc Bengaluru and IIT Bombay. Yet, in QS World University Rankings 2026, IIT Delhi ranks 123rd globally, IIT Bombay 118th, and IISc 211th, with no Indian institute in the top 100. THE rankings similarly place IISc at 201-250, highlighting gaps in international reputation, research impact, and faculty-student ratios. NIRF’s domestic focus inflates positions, but globally, Indian institutions lag due to underfunding and brain drain [12,13,14].
Another glaring case is the Bharat New Car Assessment Programme (BNCAP), India’s auto safety rating system, which was introduced when Indian-made cars performed poorly in global tests such as the Global NCAP (GNCAP) and Australasian NCAP (ANCAP). Models like Maruti Suzuki’s Celerio (2 stars), Ciaz (1 star), Alto K10 (2 stars), WagonR (1 star), Swift (1 star), and S-Presso (1 star) underperformed internationally. The Suzuki Fronx got 1 star in ANCAP. In contrast, BNCAP awarded Honda Amaze 5 stars and Maruti Baleno 4 stars, raising eyebrows. Critics point to loopholes, with nearly every tested car receiving 5 stars, suggesting leniency to favor manufacturers. This contradiction plays with passenger safety, potentially misleading consumers and exporters. Is BNCAP a tool to market Indian cars as safer abroad? International agencies have exposed these discrepancies, labeling BNCAP’s practices as fraudulent [15,16,17,18].
Extending this to broader indices, the latest 2024-2025 reports reveal India’s struggles, often prompting self-alternatives. On health, NITI Aayog’s Fiscal Health Index 2025 ranks states like Odisha and Chhattisgarh highly, but globally, Philips’ Future Health Index 2025 notes 76% of Indian professionals are optimistic about AI in healthcare, amid shortages of 3 million beds by 2025. UNDP’s Human Development Index 2025 places India at 130th out of 193, with HDI at 0.685, up from 133rd, but still medium category, reflecting gains in life expectancy but lags in education and income [19,20,21,22,23].
Corruption remains a sore point, with Transparency International’s CPI 2024 scoring India 38/100, ranking 96th, down from 93rd in 2023, amid Asia-Pacific’s declining average. Inequality is stark: Oxfam’s 2025 reports show the top 1% holding over 40% of wealth, with 73% of 2017 wealth going to them, while the bottom 50% own 3%. World Inequality Lab’s 2024-2025 data confirms historic highs, with 85% of billionaires from upper castes [24,25,26,27,28].
Poverty metrics from UNDP-Oxford’s Multidimensional Poverty Index 2025 indicate 234 million Indians in acute poverty, the highest globally, with 1.1 billion worldwide poor, 80% exposed to climate shocks. For ease of doing business, the World Bank’s Business Ready (B-READY) 2024, replacing Ease of Doing Business, assesses 50 economies, including India, on regulatory efficiency, but details show mixed performance in trade, competition, and operations [29,30,31].
In conclusion, India’s penchant for self-ranking when faced with unfavorable international assessments reflects a deeper insecurity and a quest for controlled narratives. While this may boost national pride momentarily, it undermines genuine progress. True advancement requires embracing criticism, fostering transparency, and addressing root causes. Until then, the illusion of excellence will persist, but at what cost to the populace?
