The introduction to the IIM Bill posted on the mygov site is rather innocuous and well-meaning.
“The proposed IIM Bill 2015 proposes to grant statutory status to thirteen existing IIMs. ….to enable them to grant degrees to their students (as the current certificates etc italics added) lacked universal acceptability in the field of academia and research….. the Fellow Programme in Management (equivalent to PhD), without the formal degree stamp, has not, been able to attract talented students, required to develop a strong research base in the country in the field of management education and also address the faculty shortages affecting the management institutions in the country. The proposed Bill will address this gap.”
High ideals and worthy of consideration by any right-thinking individual interested in enhancing the quality of management education, research and practice in India. In fact, the Bill starts off by loftily stating “it is hereby declared that each such institute is an institution of national importance” (clause 2).
Having a standard name across these institutions also ensures uniformity and easier brand recognition However, as the old chestnut goes, “God is in the details”. (As for the devil, the fine print is yet to emerge because this is just the Bill). And what a God it is. Because the details reveal the extent to which the netas and babus, particularly the latter, want to impose their writ over these few oases of academic excellence in the country.
Ominous Clauses
For me, the particularly ominous clauses are the following:
- 21(1) & 21(2) – these are too vague and give enormous leeway to the central government to change policies at its whims and fancies and accords total supremacy to the faceless, nameless babudom which is a dangerous thing as we have seen many times in the past. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the clause: “Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Institute shall, for the efficient administration of this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy, as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time”. And if you didn’t understand, 21(2) shoves it down unambiguously, ‘The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not, shall be final.”
- 30 & 31- the coordination forum, a new creation, is a bad idea. Period. A huge rather unwieldy forum, it consists of the Central minister of the HRD/ technical education portfolio, MoS, state education ministers, Union Secretary of education, three ‘persons of eminence’ including a woman in academia or (the omnibus delightful phrase which covers everyone from a savant to a you know who) ‘public service’, plus (the person who would really call the shots on a day-to-day basis) “one officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry or Department of the Central Government having administrative control of the technical education, ex-officio, as Member Secretary.”
Tokenism
Like the token African American or Asian in Hollywood movies, the Chairperson and Director of the institute are also included in an ex-officio capacity. What this “Coordination Forum” should do is vague and it is essentially a neta-babu forum meant to exert control over the avowedly autonomous national institutions of higher education rendering the board and director mere rubber stamps.
- 35 – this totally undermines the individual autonomy of each institute and puts all powers in the hands of the Central government — not at all a good thing plus does not specify which person/ authority in the Central government is going to do it.
- 36 Likewise, the Board needs to get approval from the “Central government” for virtually all key matters.
I am not even getting into other clauses which wish to exert control over decisions such as the fees that should be charged by the institute not just for students but even for consultancy and training, what salaries it should pay faculty etc. Why should a babu, with no accountability and usually nameless, sitting in some cubby hole in Delhi, wield so much power and authority over such decisions which should be taken by the Director and Board of each institute?
Ensure autonomy
The stated objective is to create more globally recognised institutions of higher education, particularly in the field of management, and improve and strengthen the existing ones. For this, what is essential is to ensure the autonomy of the institutions while at the same time, have clear measures of accountability and hold the IIMs to them.
What is certainly not desirable is to have faceless, nameless bureaucrats trying to remote control such institutions of higher education and excellence from Delhi. In the entire Bill, one would do well to note that there is no mention at all of the accountability and responsibility of the Central government or any of its functionaries anywhere in the Bill. The Government would do well to manage the IIMs, not control them.