Nobody Is Killing The IIMs

Why the alarmism regarding the IIM Bill is misplaced. 

In the initial days of the new government, when I first read that the government is “killing” the brand of IIMs and IITs by setting up more such institutions – I wondered why we are prone to so much exaggeration, when it comes to premier institutions. After all, the broad proposal was to have one institute per state – are we so bereft of talent that we cannot have one premier institute per state?

Recently, the IIM Bill 2015 has been put up in the public domain to seek the views of the public. Given the increased brouhaha on this bill, I finally got to read up further on what this whole controversy is all about. All along, I was under the impression that some IIM bill already exists and the government is bringing in some amendments. I came to know that no such bill exists and this is the first time such a bill is being brought in! The Institute of Technology act-1961 governs the IITs – no such Act existed for the IIMs.

I was reading up on the salient features of the bill and learnt that IIM graduates never officially got an MBA degree – a diploma was provided, and if needed an additional certificate which said that the diploma is equivalent of an MBA degree. There are however many articles that critique this bill – the gist of all being that the government is seeking absolute and total control on how IIMs should function. Most of the objections are to Sections 3(k), Sections 17, 21, 35 and 36 – all of which give the Central government powers to control the various policies and bodies of the IIM. None of them explicitly says Government will frame day-to-day rules—those powers have been given to various bodies— it’s just that major decisions have to get the approval of the government.

This article is based on two such critical articles— one published in Swarajya and the other published in The Hindu.

The author of the Swarajya piece says that he is “truly worried and scared about the future of India.” I simply can never fathom this kind of fear-mongering. Without even getting into the actual details, would a mere bill on a premier institution destroy the future of a country as diverse and large as India? Was it necessary to make such a drastic statement just to grab eyeballs?

For all the criticism, what are the suggestions put forward? To design a new structure filled with eminent people from various fields. The Directors will report to the Board. The Board will report to the National Council. The National Council will report to the … wait for it… people of India! The author says that the reporting  “(only tangentially to the elected governments at the centre and the states)”. Like it or not, people of India are represented by the Government of India and the Parliament of India— there is nothing “tangential” about it. So we are back to square one again – reporting to the Government of India! And therefore back to imagining a scary future!

The next suggestion is to create a 3 tier system. Tier-1 is the IITs, IIMs etc. Tier-2 are the NITs etc. There should be zero interference in Tier-1 and Tier-2, according to the author. Sounds good till here. And then the author goes on to suggest unfettered interference in Tier-3 institutions! The arrogance of this suggestion is simply mind-blowing. As long as Tier-1 and Tier-2 are free from interference, the “future of India” is no more “worrisome” and “scary”? Is this the “radical reform, restructure and revamp” that the author has in mind? Tier-3 institutions (and those lower in hierarchy) will house the maximum number of students – who are good and average (definitely, of course, not the best). If any “reform” is needed, then it has to be equally focused on these institutions too – this short-sighted suggestion exposes the elitist mindset of those critiquing the bill!

The criticism in The Hindu goes one step further, and wades into freedom! It states that the bill “ ..also takes away the freedom of the institution’s faculty.”. This stretch of an argument again borders on unnecessary scare-mongering – how exactly is the freedom of the faculty being lost via this bill? The author also states that “The IIMs have a great reputation simply because of this: they have been given the freedom to experiment and excel”— fair enough, but what in the bill makes them think that this freedom to experiment and excel is being taken away from them? Especially when the bill explicitly states that each institute shall – “…carry out research, publication, consultancy and advisory work to advance new knowledge and innovation…”

The only comparison we can do with the current IIM bill is the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 which covers the IITs. The IITs are governed by a Council, one of whose function is: “to lay down policy regarding cadres, methods of recruitment and conditions of service of employees, institution of scholarships and freeships, levying of fees and other matters of common interest;”

The Council is headed by the Minster of HRD and has a few government representatives on it too. We, therefore, know that the government is quite involved in the functioning of the IITs too – and if the IITs were able to excel despite this, why this scare-mongering regarding IIMs?

It would have been great if the critiques explained in a little bit more detail, perhaps by citing a few examples, on how exactly seeking the approval of the government on policy, will hamper the entire functioning of the IIMs. Instead, we have been treated to verbal harangues, sometimes bordering on the irrelevant too.

A professor from IIM-A wrote an article in The Hindu supporting the bill, and explaining in a little detail on the kind of autonomy that the IIMs seek. We are also informed that these privileges do not exist for IITs thus far – and therefore if IITs succeeded despite this, why are IIMs alarmed?

The debate on how much control is acceptable is a totally fair one, and perhaps needed too. But to use lofty words, scary phrases and needless rhetoric to labor the same point does no good to the cause. We deserve a better discourse to understand the nature of the problem. The current one is failing on this front.