The book The Allure of Battle (2017) by Cathal Nolan argues that while most military history explains winners and losers through decisive battles and strategic genius, what matters is endurance and technology. India’s first National Security Strategy document is being written and will propose accelerating domestic defence production. However, the ongoing Ukraine and Israel conflicts confirm Nolan’s thesis that Shaastra (knowledge) and Shastra (weapons) are siblings; the distinction between civilian and military technology erodes with drones, satellite internet, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and clean energy. We make the case that the strategy must include the goal of 10 universities in the top 100 global university rankings by India@100.
India confronts changing geopolitics. America accelerated China’s global economic integration, but rural and manufacturing American workers without degrees should have shot down the Pakistan Air Force plane that secretly took Henry Kissinger to China for reconciliation talks in 1971. But America has changed its mind; its National Security Advisor aims to hobble China’s capabilities by placing “foundational technologies behind a high fence”. Even “friendshoring” is threatened; the White House Economic Council Director recently suggested that a Japanese company with Chinese operations buying US Steel may impact national security. China is responding by banning Tesla cars and Apple phones from army bases because of sophisticated cameras, mics and cloud backups. Xi Jinping’s dual circulation now “means use Chinese when we can, foreign only if we must”. And Pakistan’s garrison state refuses to abandon their so-called 1,000-year war on India declared by Bhutto 60 years ago despite it poisoning their republic.
American universities have had deep military partnerships; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) contributions to World War II included radars for planes, ships, guns, airports, and the long-range navigation (LORAN) system. Crucial to this partnership was Vannevar Bush, the first dean of MIT’s School of Engineering, who left in 1939 to become chairman of the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development. It’s hardly a coincidence that Bush’s first MIT doctoral student, Frank Terman, long-time dean of Stanford’s engineering school, midwifed Silicon Valley and its deep military connections.
Are global university rankings a helpful goal? The criticism is that they are popularity contests (peer surveys), unreliable (variables are poor proxies for quality), incomplete (teaching quality missing), ideological (one-size fits all), and unequal (top 10 countries account for 60 per cent of top 500). Rankings make value judgements: Valuing learning for living or earning, equating the value of education with the graduate’s salary, and the language of customers in universities. Isn’t it impossible to decide which disciplines matter more: The sciences that lengthen our lives or the humanities that make those longer lives worth living?
But global rankings matter. Among universities, 71 per cent have a ranking goal, 68 per cent use them as a tool for management, and 50 per cent use them for publicity. Indian institutions currently engage with five rankings [NIRF, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Shanghai, US News, and Times]. Reverse engineering the QS Top 300 universities suggests what matters is size (average 25,000 plus students with 2,600 plus faculty), budgets (the top 100 have $2 billion, double the next 100, triple the next 100), age (youngest is 40 years old), and internationalisation (19 per cent of students). China has 71 universities in the top 500 QS rankings because they began targeting rankings early: 1995 (Project 211 with 100 universities), 1996 (international collaborations), 1998 (Project 985 with nine universities), 2007 (Project 985 expanded to 37 universities), 2009 (C9 league), 2012 (scientific evidence for the impact of international collaboration), 2015 (project double world-class launched when QS methodology changed), 2020 (Chinese government requests move away from citations), and 2022 (double first class).
India’s performance — only 11 in the top 500 — could rapidly improve with five interventions. First, select 20 government universities and overinvest in them (large research offices, industry liaison offices, incentives for extramural funding/marching grants). Second, merge many independent research labs into these top 20 government institutions (Paris Saclay consolidated 19 smaller institutions in 2015 and catapulted to reach Rank 1 in continental Europe and Rank 15 globally in ARWU). Third, scale and concentrate government research funding to universities (America’s $48 billion National Institute of Health and $8.6 billion National Science Foundation give 80 per cent to Universities; 40 universities get more than $250 million each, and all have top global rankings). Fourth, incentivise corporate research at local universities (200 per cent tax deduction for research when at least 25 per cent of the R&D budget is spent at Indian universities). Finally, performance-based funding (Rs 1,000 crore annual fund to grant untied money to departments/institutions with the most significant improvement in research metrics and rankings). India is fertile soil — many IITs, central universities and private universities like Ashoka and Premji are reaching tipping points in research, budgets, quality, and students.
India’s security space is already transforming with intelligent procurement, spending shift to capex, lower average soldier age, integrated commands, cross-border strikes, abrogation of Article 370, QUAD partnership, etc. The proposed Defence Technology Council is a great idea; chaired by the Prime Minister, it will have an executive committee chaired by the Chief of Defence Staff and will include the Principal Scientific Advisor, three service chiefs, academics, and industry representatives. Partnering with universities will also improve project management; the CAG recently flagged that 67 per cent of the 178 defence projects evaluated didn’t adhere to timelines.
India is improving at building companies, but better choreography between universities and government will help us build industries. Thoughtful military leaders have always recognised the foolishness in the poem by Alfred Tennyson that glorified “charging into the valley of death” and known that Shaastra and Shastra are siblings; Field Marshal Rommel believed, “sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains save both”. Targeting imperfect global university rankings for national security is debatable, but inevitable. Let’s do it.
Sabharwal is co-founder of Teamlease Services and Dhawan is co-founder of Ashoka University
