📰 Rhino reintroduction a hit in Assam reserve
Manas National Park rhinos need translocation support, reveals latest census
•The one-horned rhinos of western Assam’s Manas National Park, bordering Bhutan, are expected to have high life expectancy and significant growth in population, the 14th Assam rhino estimation census has revealed.
•But on the flip side, the 500-sq.-km park does not have “a wider representation of calves and sub-adults” to sustain the population structure unless it is supplemented through conservation translocations.
•Manas, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a tiger reserve, had about 100 resident rhinos prior to 1990, but a prolonged ethno-political conflict thereafter took a heavy toll with extremist groups known to have traded the horns of the herbivores for weapons.
•A rhino reintroduction programme under the Indian Rhino Vision 2020 was started in 2006. This entailed the translocation of rhinos from Kaziranga National Park and Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary besides orphans hand-reared at the Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation at Kaziranga. The current rhino population in the park was estimated at 40 after the census on April 1 and 2.
•A detailed census report by Vaibhav C. Mathur, the field director of Manas, said the park’s rhinos have a male-female sex ratio of 1:1, arrived at without considering 10 calves and five sub-adults. But such a population may suffer losses if not supplemented through translocations, the report warned. “A suitable strategy to bring in more rhinos from other rhino-bearing areas is required so as to have a wider representation of calves and sub-adults over time,” the census report said.
Speed limit
•Meanwhile, the Kaziranga National Park authorities have restricted the speed of vehicles on the highway adjoining the park to 40 km per hour. This is an annual step taken to prevent vehicles from hitting animals that move out of the park during floods.
•Officials said six sensor-based cameras have been installed at nine designated animal corridors of the park to measure the speed of vehicles and impose fines on those who violate the order.
•The cameras are equipped with automatic number plate recognising system with radar for determining speed, a divisional forest officer said.
•As per the orders of the National Green Tribunal, owners of vehicles that do not adhere to the speed limit will be penalised.
The U.S. Trade Representative highlighted IP challenges in India in its annual Special 301 report released last month
•India became a party to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement following its membership to the World Trade Organisation on January 1, 1995.
•The U.S., in its yearly Special 301 report, highlighted a range of issues in the Indian section, ranging from copyright and piracy to trademark counterfeiting and trade secrets.
•It stated that India must not compromise on the patentability criteria under Section 3(d) since as a sovereign country it has the “flexibility to stipulate limitations on grants of patents in consistence with its prevailing socio-economic conditions.”
•The story so far: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said in a report released last month that India was one of the most challenging major economies as far as IP protection and enforcement is concerned. It has decided to retain India on its Priority Watch List along with six other countries —Argentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, Russia and Venezuela. Among the issues raised in the report are India’s inconsistencies regarding patent protection, including concerns about what can be patented, waiting time for obtaining patents, burdensome reporting requirements, and doubts about data safety. India had undertaken an intellectual property review exercise last year, where a Parliamentary Standing Committee examined this subject.
The Indian patent regime
•A patent is an exclusive set of rights granted for an invention, which may be a product or process that provides a new way of doing something or offers a new technical solution to a problem. Indian patents are governed by the Indian Patent Act of 1970.
•India has gradually aligned itself with international regimes pertaining to intellectual property rights. It became a party to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement following its membership to the World Trade Organisation on January 1, 1995.
•India is also a signatory to several IPR related conventions, including the Berne Convention, which governs copyright, the Budapest Treaty, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), all of which govern various patent-related matters.
•An interesting point is that the original Indian Patents Act did not grant patent protection to pharmaceutical products to ensure that medicines were available at a low price. Patent protection of pharmaceuticals were re-introduced after the 2005 amendment to comply with TRIPS.
•Last month, the U.S. released its yearly Special 301 report, its annual review highlighting the state of intellectual property rights protection in different countries which are its trading partners around the world.
•In its India section, the report highlighted a range of issues in domains ranging from copyright and piracy to trademark counterfeiting and trade secrets, saying that India “remained one of the world’s most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of IP.”
•It said patent issues continued “to be of particular concern in India,” highlighting the threat of patent revocations, lack of presumption of patent validity and narrow patentability criteria as issues which “impact companies across different sectors.”
•The USTR had also released a similar report in 2021, addressing much of the same concerns.
•These, and general issues regarding IPR were extensively tackled by the Parliamentary Standing Committee which undertook a ‘review of the intellectual property rights regime in India,’. The Committee tabled its findings before the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha in July last year.
Article 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act
•This offered an insight into the landscape of Indian intellectual property law and where it is reasonably in sync with American patent laws and where it diverges. One of the main points of contention between India and the U.S. has been Article 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act.
•Section 3 deals with what does not qualify as an invention under the Act, and Section 3(d) in particular excludes “the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant” from being eligible for protection under patent law.
•This was addressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee as well, which pointed out that the section “acts as a safeguard against frivolous inventions in accordance with the flexibility provided in the TRIPS agreement.”
•Section 3(d), as mentioned above, prevents the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance from being patented as an invention unless it enhances the efficacy of the substancerepetitive . This prevents, what is known as “evergreening” of patents.
•According to the Committee’s report, Section 3(d) allows for “generic competition by patenting only novel and genuine inventions.”
TRIPS and the Doha Declaration
•The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health was adopted on November 14, 2021, by the WTO member states. This declaration recognises the “gravity of public health problems affecting developing and least developed nations” and stresses the need for TRIPS to be part of the wider national and international action to address these problems.
•It recognises that “intellectual property protection is important for the development of new medicines,” and acknowledges concerns about its effects on prices. Saying that the TRIPS agreement “does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health,” the declaration points out that the agreement “can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members’ right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.”
•Compulsory licences can be invoked by a state in public interest, allowing companies apart from the patent owner to produce a patented product without consent.
•It concluded that India must not compromise on the patentability criteria under Section 3(d) since as a sovereign country it has the “flexibility to stipulate limitations on grants of patents in consistence with its prevailing socio-economic conditions.” It said that this ensures the growth of generic drug makers and the public’s access to affordable medicines.
•It indicated that India should resolve its differences with the U.S. regarding the disqualification of incremental inventions through bilateral dialogue.
Positive steps
•The report highlighted some positive steps taken by India in the recent past, such as the accession to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty and WIPO Copyright Treaty, collectively known as the WIPO Internet Treaties, in 2018 and the Nice Agreement in 2019.
•The Parliamentary Standing Committee too noted amendments pertaining to Form 27, under the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2020. Some notable changes include allowing a single Form 27 to be filed for multiple related patents, filing of joint forms if there are more patentees and allowing authorised agents to submit forms.
•India and the U.S. will continue to engage on IP matters, the report says, especially through the Trade Policy Forum’s Intellectual Property Working Group.
📰 Is the ban on wheat exports good policy?
It is ad hoc, hurts farmers’ incomes, and may not impact inflation much
•Over the last month, the government has banned the export of wheat and imposed quantitative restrictions on outbound sugar shipments. The wheat export ban came within days of a push to enhance India’s wheat supplies to the rest of the world after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is a time of persistently high inflation, spurred by rising food and fuel prices, and there are concerns about a lower yield this year due to intensive heat waves. The government has argued that farmers have not lost out due to the ban as most had already sold their produce this season. In a discussion moderated by Vikas Dhoot, S. Mahendra Dev and Himanshu consider the efficacy of these curbs. Edited excerpts:
What do the export curbs mean for reining in inflation and addressing India’s food security concerns?
•Himanshu: I don’t think the export ban is going to help much with inflation as the procurement season for the wheat crop is more or less over. I don’t think it is going to keep the prices down or help the government to procure and prepare better for food security.
•My objection to the ban has not been on the policy of export curbs per se — almost 30 countries have done the same, and countries should have a sovereign right to decide what is the right time to curb exports. My problem is with a kind of ad-hocism or muddled policy-making. And this is not the first time, which makes it more worrying. This has been going on for the last two decades — there is no planning on how to manage the trade policy for agriculture products or even other products. Look at it: on May 12, there was an official press release about sending delegations to nine countries to explore wheat export opportunities. And then on May 13, there was an export ban. That’s not the right way of looking at it. Through April, officials went to the U.S., talked to President Joe Biden, and the Finance and Commerce Ministers were saying, ‘If not for the WTO [World Trade Organization], we will be feeding the entire world’. And then suddenly within a month, the government says, ‘No, no, we don’t have enough for exports.’ This gives a wrong signal to domestic farmers as well as traders. It is certainly not good for food security because whatever damage was supposed to happen has already happened. The government has not been able to procure whatever is required for managing its food security apparatus.
Did circumstances change significantly between April and May with the wheat crop estimates being downgraded? Or even between May 12 and May 13, when India went from being an aspiring wheat exporter to the world to banning exports completely?
•S. Mahendra Dev: Even before the Ukraine-Russia war, global food prices were increasing because of excess liquidity across the world. But the war gave India an opportunity to export more wheat. The global export market is around 200 million tonnes, of which 55 million tonnes are generally from Ukraine and Russia. India exported 7 million tonnes in 2021-22, and everybody thought we had a lot of opportunity this year. Open market prices were higher at ₹2,400 a quintal compared to the MSP [Minimum Support Price] of around ₹2,100. So, farmers were getting higher prices after a long time. The export ban has two effects. It impacts farmers’ incomes as well as the long-term credibility of the export policy. One reason given for the ban was the production estimates. In 2006 too, production was overestimated and India had to import as procurement was low. It’s the same now: many people thought production was over-estimated at 111 million tonnes; now we may have 99-100 million tonnes. The second reason was procurement. Last year, 44 million tonnes were procured; now we are expecting around 19 million tonnes. The third reason was the retail inflation, which was inching close to 8% in April, with food products even higher.
•The government may have acted for these reasons, but it has hurt farmers’ incomes and the impact on inflation may not be very high because global food prices are still high. Instead of an export ban, it could have opted for a minimum export price and given a bonus of ₹250 to ₹300 to spur more procurement for food security goals. On sugar, of global exports of around 64 million tonnes, India was exporting 8 million tonnes last year. Now, there is no shortage of sugar production. We are expecting 35 million tonnes. Even with exports, we could have had a closing stock of around 6 million tonnes. So, there was no need — the government says it is because of global shortage and higher prices in India. It thinks that during the festival season, sugar prices should not go up and has restricted exports to 10 million tonnes.
•Food and Consumer Affairs Minister Piyush Goyal has said local wheat prices have fallen by about ₹5 a kg, so the export ban is indeed working. The G7 nations and other countries have urged India to rethink the ban, though government-to-government procurements will be considered.
•Himanshu: Global credibility is not as important as India has not been a regular wheat exporter except for the last two-three years when it had excess stocks. The more serious issue is the credibility of government policy for our biggest stakeholders — the millions of farmers who need a stable and consistent policy. This has not been provided. As far as domestic price measures are concerned, things get a little tricky — because for the last few years, farmers have been suffering through low prices domestically, due to the slowdown in the economy and the pandemic. Finally, when they had the chance to get slightly better incomes from the produce, the government imposed the export ban. So, the domestic outcomes of the export ban are worrying, because we had options like a bonus for procurement that could have helped farmers and food security concerns. Some kind of disincentives could have been built in rather than an outright ban on exports, which basically doesn’t help the farmers or even the consumers that much, whatever the government claims.
•We have to see this in the context of the overall agricultural policy, not just for exports, but also incentives and market interventions. What we need is a more cohesive, consistent, stable and predictable agricultural policy, rather than an ad-hoc, unjustified manner of pressing the panic button.
In 2016-17, India had a good pulses crop. But procurement was bungled then and farmers, who were left high and dry, reduced sowing for pulses from the next year. Could we see a similar impact on sowing preferences this time?
•Himanshu: This is an important question. Let’s look at oil seeds, another commodity which has seen a massive increase in prices. We have been importing roughly 60% of our seeds and must produce more. But as prices have gone up, the government reduced the import duty on palm oil, and while that is going to reduce market prices for consumers, it would be at the cost of the farmer who will not enjoy the benefits of higher price. So, in a sense, we are penalising the farmer who could have actually shifted production towards oil seeds, but can’t compete with cheaper imports. So, we have a policy that penalises farmers at the cost of the consumers, who always get the preference, whether it is pulses or oil seeds.
•The 2016 episode with pulses is a good example — when farmers were able to get higher prices, the government dumped imports from Mozambique and other countries, which led to the collapse of prices. Since then, farmers have been hesitant to go into pulses production. The risks of a muddled policy can damage prospects across the spectrum. We have gone from self-sufficiency in edible oils at the beginning of the 1990s to complete dependency on imports — and trade policy had a large role in that.
•S. Mahendra Dev: Since Independence, we have been favouring the consumers at the expense of the farmers. That has to change. The situation assessment survey of 2018-19 shows that farmers’ incomes are low, with only ₹127 a day from cultivation. We have to think of the farmers’ families because they also have expenses, such as health, education and agriculture inputs. For consumers, social protection programmes can act as a support rather than a reduction in farm prices.
•Sowing preferences may not change that much, because rice and wheat get a lot of incentives and take up about 80% of the water of the entire agriculture sector. But this ad-hocism — one year we export, next year we ban it — has been happening with most commodities, from wheat to onions. Diversification is important not just for food security, but also nutrition security as many of the poor are not able to buy pulses or eggs and meat.
The government had talked of doubling farm incomes by 2022. How do these steps fit in with that goal?
•S. Mahendra Dev: In 2013, farmers were getting ₹6,400 and in 2018-19, that was around ₹7,700 in real terms. That’s a 21% increase in six years, or 3.5% per annum. You need 10% growth per year to double farm incomes. Non-farm income is also needed because cultivation alone is not enough.
•Himanshu: I think everybody knew when the announcement was made that this is impossible — when it had not happened in the past, it was unlikely to happen when the economy was in the middle of a slowdown. Also, farmer incomes are dependent on not just output prices but also input costs, which have been rising. So, you can have a weird situation where input prices grow faster than output prices, and farmers actually make losses rather than higher incomes. Even over the last six months of rising prices, I don’t think farmers gained much. A large part of the benefits went to traders and speculators, who hoarded stocks to sell at high prices later.
The whole premise of the three farm reform laws, now abandoned, was to give farmers the freedom to sell where and when they want…
•Himanshu: I think the last three months have been a good example of the futility of the farm laws. The Government says the farmers have sold wheat at a higher price because the government was able to pick up less than 20 million tonnes, less than half the target. So, farmers obviously had avenues if they wanted to sell it to the private players. They managed to sell it without any change in the market infrastructure and without the farm laws. The problem is only when the prices are low as that is when you need the government to step in, and that is the point of MSP. This is a good example of how a bogey was created around the farm laws, that these were the only barriers to farmers not getting high prices. But now the government itself is saying farmers have got high prices, nullifying the entire premise on which the laws were formulated. The problem was not about the farmers, it’s the nature of agricultural markets and the vulnerability of farmers.
•S. Mahendra Dev: We have been talking about farm reforms since 2003. My stand has been this: leave it to the States. In India, a large country, you cannot have one system for the entire country, which has so many variations in soil, climate. etc. So, each State can see what can be done rather than the Centre imposing farm laws.
📰 An enduring agreement bridging India-Pakistan ties
Despite differences, the Indus Waters Treaty is one of most effective examples of water management in the world
•The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is an established water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan to use water in the Indus and its tributaries. In the words of former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, the treaty has since its existence in 1960, served as “one bright spot ... in a very depressing world picture that we see so often”, resolving the long-standing differences between India and Pakistan since Partition.
•Following the 118th meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) comprising the Indus Commissioners of India and Pakistan held on May 30-31, 2022 in New Delhi, it is important to reflect on the struggles and the high stakes that the two countries have experienced to ensure a long-lasting treaty on the one hand and the lessons that can be drawn to address multiple concerns pending in the region on the other.
Struggles and stakes
•After years of arduous negotiations, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960, by then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistani President Ayub Khan, negotiated by the World Bank. The treaty establishes a cooperative mechanism for exchanging information between the two countries regarding the use of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) allocated to Pakistan and the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) allocated to India. However, the treaty also underlines provisions allowing each country to use the rivers allocated to the other for certain purposes such as irrigation and hydroelectricity. The Permanent Indus Commission, which has a commissioner from each country, oversees the cooperative mechanism and ensures that the two countries meet annually (alternately in India and Pakistan) to discuss myriad issues emerging from the treaty. This year, the commission met twice, in March in Islamabad, Pakistan, and then in New Delhi, in May.
Some differences
•India-Pakistan relations have most often been embroiled in the high politics of the region’s history resulting in a political stalemate between the two countries. It is a rare feat that despite the many lows in India-Pakistan relations, talks under the treaty have been held on a regular basis.
•Nonetheless, throughout its existence, there have been many occasions during which differences between the two countries were discernible. For instance, both countries held different positions when Pakistan raised objections regarding the technical design features of the Kishanganga (330 megawatts) and Ratle (850 megawatts) hydroelectric power plants located on the tributaries of the Jhelum and the Chenab, respectively, designated as “Western Rivers”. However, under Articles III and VII of the treaty, India is permitted to construct hydroelectric power facilities on these rivers (subject to constraints specified in Annexures to the Treaty).
•Differences were also discernible when Pakistan approached the World Bank to facilitate the setting up of a court of arbitration to address the concerns related to these two projects referred to in Article IX Clause 5 of the treaty, and when India requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert referent to Clause 2.1 of Article IX on the settlement of differences and dispute of the treaty, respectively. Disagreements continued on the issue with many meetings brokered by the World Bank to resolve their disagreements. But it was without any success.
•Eventually, on March 31, 2022, the World Bank, in view of the differences, decided to resume two separate processes by appointing a neutral expert and a chairman for the court of arbitration. However, the two parties have not been able to find an acceptable solution. The appointment of a neutral expert will find precedence to address the differences since under Article IX Clause 6 of the treaty provisions, Arbitration ‘shall not apply to any difference while it is being dealt with by a Neutral Expert’. Therefore, the two separate processes are more likely to generate technical and legal repercussions.
•Similarly, Pakistan, invoking Article VII Clause 2 on future cooperation, raised objections on the construction and technical designs of the Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai hydropower plants located on Marusudar river, a tributary of the Chenab, in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir. The 117th and the 118th meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission held this year deliberated this issue. Here, India has assured Pakistan that all the concerned projects are treaty compliant.
•Similarly, India has raised concerns on issues such as Pakistan’s blockade of the Fazilka drain, which resulted in water contamination in the border areas, referent to Article II Clause 3 and Article IV Clause 4 and 6 of the treaty. During the 117th bilateral meeting in March, Pakistan assured India of all possible actions to ensure the free flow of the Fazilka drain into the Sutlej.
•Notwithstanding the differences, both countries have so far endeavoured to amicably address all such issues with both sides assuring to implement the treaty in letter and spirit.
Lessons from the treaty
•Although there are many outstanding issues, the treaty is important and many lessons can be drawn. The treaty is an illustration of a long-standing engagement between the conflicting nations that has stood the vagaries of time. It has withstood tensions, including conflict, providing a framework for cooperation. The treaty, therefore, is considered one of the oldest and the most effective examples of water management cooperation in the region and the world. The 118th bilateral meeting corroborates its effectiveness.
•With the exception of differences on a few pending issues, both countries have avoided any actions resulting in the aggravation of the conflict or acted in a manner causing conflict to resurface. The recent bilateral meeting points to mutual respect, communication and a sharing of information, despite differences.
Potential for cooperation
•The treaty can serve as an edifice to address the challenges of climate change. Recognising common interests and mutual benefits, India and Pakistan can undertake joint research on the rivers to study the impact of climate change for ‘future cooperation’ (underlined in Article VII).
•The Indus Waters Treaty also offers great potential for cooperation and development in the subcontinent which can go a long way in ensuring peace and stability. Given that both India and Pakistan have been committed to manage the rivers in a responsible manner, the Treaty can be a reference point to resolve other water-related issues in the region through regular dialogue and interaction.
📰 Ties reset
India and Iran need to rebuild their ties affected adversely by recent global events
•Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian’s first visit to India this week has many implications for bilateral relations, but it is the multilateral context and timing that stand out. This is the first visit by a member of the 57-member Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, which took offence to comments made in India on the Prophet. The controversy has overshadowed India’s other diplomatic engagements. As a result, his visit was an opportunity for New Delhi to project that it has successfully assuaged the Islamic world with the actions of the ruling BJP against its spokespersons. For New Delhi, which always seeks to run a balance in ties between the two rivals, the Iranian visit comes a week after that of Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz. It also coincides with the meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA in Vienna, which has passed strictures against Iran for its nuclear programme. For Mr. Abollahaian, the visit would be portrayed as a show of support from a powerful country. In addition, Iran and India discussed the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, just days after an Indian envoy made the first outreach to Kabul. To this end, India and Iran have discussed further operationalising the Chabahar port, where goods to Afghanistan were sent before the government in Kabul fell last year. Finally, against the backdrop of the Russian war in Ukraine, and western sanctions, Iran has also been keen to convince New Delhi to restore its crude oil purchases, which it cancelled in 2019, after threats of U.S. sanctions. While there was no public statement on the matter during the official part of the visit, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statement was significant — he called for the U.S. and Europe to allow Iranian and Venezuelan oil back into the international market if they want India to lower Russian oil imports, accusing the West of “squeezing” all alternative sources for India.
•On the bilateral front too, India and Iran have catching up to do, with many promises of the last summit in Delhi left unrealised. Instead of increasing Indian oil imports, investments in developing reserves, building up the Chabahar rail project and scaling up trade, India has drastically cut its Iranian engagement due to sanctions, while Iran has looked to China for more infrastructure investment. Bilateral trade dropped to just over $2 billion (2020-21) from $17 billion (2017-18). Ties also appeared to have been hit by New Delhi’s surprise decision to join the Israel-India-UAE-U.S. group, portrayed as an “anti-Iran” coalition, and by perceptions of Iranian support to Yemeni Houthis behind the drone attack on a UAE oil facility where an Indian was among those killed. Mr. Abdullohaian’s visit, and a possible visit by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, may be the start of a reset of traditionally strong ties even if it is one that is buffeted by developments in other parts of the world.
📰 ‘IISc, Bengaluru top Indian varsity’
It ranks 155 in QS World University Rankings; 41 Indian institutions on the list
•The Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (IISc) is the new national leader in the QS World University Rankings, 2023 released on Thursday, which also shows that all Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) improved their standing.
•The latest edition of QS World University Rankings features 41 Indian universities, of which 12 improved their positions, 12 remained stable, 10 declined and seven are new entries.
•The IISc ranks 155th globally, and is the global leader in the citations per faculty (CpF) indicator, which QS uses to evaluate the impact of the research produced by universities. It is the fastest rising South Asian university among the top-200 universities in the QS rankings, having climbed 31 places year on year.
•The IIT Bombay, which was the top Indian university in QS World University Rankings of the previous edition, is the second best Indian institution this time and climbed five places globally to reach the 172 rank.
•The third best Indian university is the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IITD), followed by IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur.
•O.P. Jindal Global University is the top-ranked private institute in India, and moved up from the 701-750 ranking band to 651-700, followed by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education and Amity University.
•The IISc is the world’s top research university, achieving a perfect score of 100/100 for CpF.
•The IIT in Guwahati and Roorkee and the University of Madras are also among global top-50 research institutions. However, Indian universities struggle with teaching capacity and internationalisation. Thirty of India’s 41 ranked universities have suffered declines in the faculty-student ratio indicator with only four recording improvements.
•Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham is the best-performing local institution for the proportion of international faculty ranking 411 globally and the Amity University is the national leader for the proportion of international students, ranking 542 globally.
