Negative media narratives tank Manipur University's NAAC and NIRF rankings

Manipur University, once a thriving center for education and scientific research, secured an NAAC 'A' grade (CGPA 3.02) in 2017, valid until 2022. But midway through 2018, a storm has erupted with administrative scandals leading to the student protests. It sparked the era's fiercest protests, triggering a barrage of negative national headlines and blistering local coverage that exposed financial mismanagement and irregular appointments, allegedly branding the university a den of corruption.

The toll? NAAC demoted MU to B+, while NIRF’s top-100 gate slammed shut.High NAAC grades and NIRF ranks enhance university reputation, attracting top talent and collaborations. They grant greater autonomy, increased UGC funding, higher enrollments, industry partnerships, better placements, research grants, and international tie-ups.

The Manipur University recruitment cycle—from recruitment notice to final appointment—has become a recurring flashpoint in media headlines. Despite operating under its own Act, Ordinances, and Statutes, the university’s selection process is repeatedly marred by allegations of nepotism, corruption, and protracted court litigation, severely disrupting institutional functioning. These claims, often amplified through one-sided reporting and unverified narratives in certain media outlets, distort public perception and unjustly portray University authorities as culpable, eroding trust and damaging the university’s hard-earned reputation.

NAAC (UGC) accredits universities and colleges with A++–C grades on 7 criteria (teaching, research, governance), ensuring quality and unlocking funding/autonomy for 5 years. NIRF (Ministry of Education) annually ranks HEIs on 5 parameters (1,000 marks), including 10% perception, driving prestige. Strong NAAC boosts NIRF—both vital for reputation and resources.

Negative media narratives directly harms both NAAC and NIRF rankings. For NAAC, it erodes stakeholder trust, lowering satisfaction scores and capping maturity levels in Governance and Institutional Values. For NIRF, it tanks the 10% Perception parameter through public and peer surveys, while disrupting placements and research credibility, ultimately dragging overall rankings and institutional reputation.

Since 2018, relentless negative media narratives have escalated student complaints over administrative miscommunication gaps into a full-blown reputational crisis. National and local outlets amplified unverified allegations of financial misconduct, recruitment irregularities, nepotism, and corruption via viral posts, protest videos, and dominant Google search results. Some section of the local media branded Manipur University as a “den of corruption,” while national reports fixated on arrests, CBI investigations, and ED raids.

Without UGC audits, official records, or cross-verification, negative media coverage framed the university as unstable, directly impacting NIRF’s 10% Perception (PR) score—potentially reducing it to below 50 (vs. 85–95 typically seen in top-25 peers)—and indirectly affecting Graduation Outcomes (20% weight in university category) through delayed examinations and declining placement rates.

NAAC maturity levels were also adversely affected: stakeholder surveys reflected public and media-driven dissatisfaction, likely limiting Governance, Leadership & Management (Criterion 6, ~10% weight) to Level 2 in the graded accreditation system. Protest-related disruptions hampered Teaching-Learning & Evaluation (Criterion 2, 35% weight) by affecting class continuity, exam schedules, and student satisfaction metrics. Meanwhile, negative narratives undermined Institutional Values & Best Practices (Criterion 7, 10% weight), particularly in areas of inclusivity, stakeholder engagement, and institutional image.

Over the past eight years, media coverage of Manipur University has followed a ruthless, predictable pattern: anonymous leaks flood newsrooms and WhatsApp groups, local outlets publish within hours without seeking input from MU authorities—such as the Public Relations Officer—and national media amplify the claims with vague attributions to “Imphal sources.” This unverified, one-sided cascade systematically undermines institutional credibility.

Regional peers like Tezpur and Mizoram Universities faced similar issues but contained them as internal “family matters,” preserving higher accreditations and excellence. In Manipur, agitation spectacles, pressure group tactics, and political mileage transformed hiccups into media circuses, poisoning perceptions and starving the University of faculties, recruiters, and reforms. 

We all share culpability—sharing alleged viral “exposes,” forwarding unverified scams, nodding to Discussion Hours in TV channels of MU’s demise—leaving it trailing peers who shield momentum from public glare. The University doesn’t need miracles—just image surgery. When truth falls first, students, faculty, and Manipur’s progress lose.

Institutional reputation significantly influences NAAC Maturity-Based Graded Accreditation (Levels 1–5) and NIRF rankings, particularly through stakeholder surveys and perception metrics, even after the shift from letter grades to maturity levels in 2024. Negative media coverage can indirectly lower scores by shaping responses in NAAC’s qualitative component (30% weight) and NIRF’s Perception parameter (10% weight). Unaddressed disruptions may delay critical data submissions (e.g., placement records, exam results), while allegations of corruption or ethnic unrest—if reflected in enrollment declines or stakeholder feedback—can reduce scores in Governance (NAAC Criterion 6), Diversity (Criterion 1 & 4), and Institutional Values (Criterion 7).

Certain officers have been selectively targeted with allegations of recruitment scams and irregularities, presented through one-sided narratives sourced exclusively from press releases by disgruntled unsuccessful candidates or groups. These reports seldom include the University’s official version, enabling biased coverage to inflict lasting reputational damage. Once published in print or online, such content leaves indelible digital footprints—numerous clarifications and rebuttals cannot fully undo the harm.

The All Manipur Working Journalists’ Union (AMWJU) and Editors’ Guild Manipur (EGM) have long upheld ethical journalism and public trust. At this critical moment, their leadership becomes indispensable to safeguard the prestige of Manipur University. By immediately issuing binding editorial guidelines—mandating official verification, dual-source authentication, and rigorous cross-checking of all documents before publishing MU-related reports—these bodies can halt the spread of unverified narratives. Such decisive action will restore institutional credibility, protect the university’s standing in NAAC maturity levels and NIRF perception scores, and reinforce the integrity of the University.

This isn’t censorship—Clause 16 of the Local Code of Conduct safeguards editorial independence—but a wise wielding to filter sensationalism from substance. 

This responsible gatekeeping will safeguard the university’s reputation and its students’ future—paving the way for stronger NAAC rankings, greater central funding, and the institutional autonomy enjoyed by peer universities across India.

Every stakeholder—the MU administration, student bodies, media, and citizens of the state—must unite to restore the University's former glory. We owe it to shift from negative portrayals to a positive spotlight. Bad publicity has already cost Manipur University in lost opportunities and funding—resources that could transform our campus and empower its people.