There has been a fair share of debate on the new IIM Bill 2015, which has recently been put up for public feedback. What is, however, unnerving is that this is not the first time attempts are made to impose greater oversight on these virtually autonomous institutions.
What does the proposed legislation try to achieve? Essentially, it alters the basic governance structure, with the present society and governing board oversight being replaced by a three-layered control mechanism comprising the visitor, the board of governors and the academic council.
Besides, a chief administrative officer is provided for in the statute. While currently the institutes are free to decide on fees, academic structure, hostels, granting of degrees/diplomas, the Bill gives almost all these tasks to the board of governors, which, in turn, has to obtain the prior approval of the government. Pay scales and emoluments are to be controlled by the government as before.
Currently, these institutions can create their own corpora by non-governmental funding; perhaps the new dispensation may make government funding the predominant source of revenue. The central government would be appointing the chairman, the director and almost all members of statutory bodies. There is a clear decision mechanism laid down, especially with regard to the review of functioning, policy decisions, budget estimates, academic content and admission process, besides appointment of auditors. Further, a coordination forum headed by the minister is provided for to discuss issues of common interest, scholarships for certain categories, coordination among the IIMs, etc. However, the Bill proposes to declare the IIMs as institutions of national importance.
What can be the practical implications of such widespread changes? One can quickly visualise that all IIMs will be put on a common syllabus or academic content, pay scales and incentives. It is also possible that transferability of staff may be introduced to prevent heartburn in seniority, etc. Further, rigid administrative structures and processes may make changes of syllabus and academic content difficult and discourage innovations in academic leadership and excellence.
Frequent reviews and committee recommendations are bound to put the institute leadership on tenterhooks and more compliant. It has often been seen in the university system that groupism and factionalism take roots and vertically divide the students, diverting their attention from the core goals.
What does it means for the students? No two IIMs are alike, no two students are alike and no two seasons are alike, even within an IIM. Broadly, at present, the IIM seasons flow in six stages: first term, ennui, internship, revelation, life to live, and placement. The most torturous is the first term, where one slowly realises that every other student is a rank holder and, that too, from a prime college. Class participation and quiz grades much below the bloated expectations follow in quick succession but, of course, everyone knows how to cope. Everyone finds his level. Term two is a bit more relaxed. And then comes the internship fever and a flurry of cultural, sports and other extracurricular activities. Soon the graduate is pushed to some inconspicuous corner of the globe or India to hit the streets and gets to face the reality. The ‘coolest’ time, of course, is the second year, when one chooses courses of choice, pursue hobbies and interests and ventures to go outside the cosy confines of the campus. The busiest and most testing period is, naturally, the placement season when dog eats dog, one cannot recognise his classmates, and matrimonial bonds become quickly visible, a la Chetan Bhagat’s lead actor of Two States. Studies take a certain backseat and lifestyle activities and presentational skills are honed.
Any tinkering with the present systems and processes is bound to erode the sanctity of the experience at the IIMs and these may recede into normal college graduations.
While there are merits in common syllabi, faculty levels, government funding, a statutory degree and lead to higher levels of review, one can visualise that this may act as a leveller to lower achievements, higher level of political interference, and acute budgetary control, leading to scaling down of amenities to sarkari levels. Debates on institutions of excellence are usually fraught with lots of smoke and fire and perhaps may distract from the vision of academic and managerial excellence, curb innovation and prescribe minimum standards for passing the course and degrade the present levels. It may be, however, a boon for the new IIMs which seek funds, better faculty, better students and a statutory recognition.
The author is IIM Ahmedabad alumnus