The Hindu : IIMs, fees & freedom of management

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Mar 29, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

IIMs, fees & freedom of management

By Ramaswamy R. Iyer

The question whether the fees can or should be reduced is doubtless important, but less so than the question "Who should decide?"

THE Indian Institute of Management fee-cut case is before the Supreme Court again, and there seems to be a possibility of a fuller presentation of all aspects to the Court. One hopes that there will be occasion for the voices of the faculty, the managements, and others concerned with higher education in the country, to be heard. Meanwhile, such public debate as is taking place in the media or at meetings seems to be proceeding on the wrong lines. The question whether the fees can or should be reduced is doubtless important, but less so than the question "Who should decide?" The aim of this note is not so much to argue a case as to set out the elements of the debate succinctly, though this writer's own views will undoubtedly show through.

Let us first get one red herring out of the way. Are the IIMs `elitist' institutions? Of course they are. All institutions of higher or specialised education, and all institutions of advanced research — in the natural sciences, mathematics, social sciences, humanities, advanced medicine or surgery, the newly blossoming area of information technology, management, and so on — are definitely elitist, and the word need not and should not have a pejorative implication. Nalanda, the Athenian academy, the Sangams in Tamil literary history, Alexandria, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge, the London School of Economics, Harvard, Yale, and so on, were and are all elitist institutions. We do not need caste, class or money elites, but intellectual and professional elites have a (non-political, non-power) role to play.

The second obvious point is that such education is bound to be somewhat expensive to provide. That cost (which is a factor, but not the only one, in setting fees) can either be fully recovered from the students or be partly borne by the state. There is a difference of views on this.

The third point, again obvious, is that access to such institutions should not be limited to the very rich or even the moderately prosperous, or in other words, that access should not be denied to those from the poorer classes or the disadvantaged groups. Whether that requires the fees to be low, and if so how low is low enough, and whether such low levels are feasible or whether loans and scholarships will ensure adequate access is again a matter on which there are two views, and they need to be gone into.

An argument that has been put forward in this context is that loans are readily available to those who have secured admission to the IIMs; that the students of the IIMs have in fact come from all classes and not merely from the affluent groups; that the students emerging from the IIMs are able to find immediate placements at very high salaries; that they can pay back any loans that they might have taken for financing their fees with ease and within a short period; and that there is no justification at all for subsidising their fees. Doubtless that point will be argued before the Court.

We return to the question: "Who should set the fees?" Whatever the considerations that should govern the setting of the fees, it seems self-evident that this is a function of the management. The fact that Harvard has reportedly reduced fees for poorer families has figured repeatedly in the media. It should be noted that it is Harvard University and not the Government, Federal or State, that has taken the decision.

That brings us to the question of the relationship (particularly financial) between the IIMs and the Government of India. Some years ago, the then Finance Minister reportedly advised the IIMs to become financially self-reliant and to reduce if not eliminate the need for funds from the Government; this was partly the result of the financial difficulties of the Government, but also partly a reflection of the new economic philosophy. The IIMs have diligently and successfully followed that course. The present Government has reversed that advice. Now the Government says in effect: "Reduce the fees, and we will give you grants to cover the deficit." What is the justification for this volte face? Under the prevailing economic philosophy, is there a case for Government subsidy for higher education of a kind that leads instantly to highly remunerative employment? Was there a case even under the earlier `socialistic' philosophy? In relation to primary education it is clear that the state has a responsibility. The state may even wish to promote higher education in the natural or social sciences or in areas such as medicine through subsidisation; but is there need for state subsidisation of management education? The answer seems obvious to this writer, but the question could doubtless be debated.

Finally, there is the question of `autonomy'. The Government's relationship to `autonomous' institutions — whether they be universities or other educational or research institutions or public enterprises or regulatory authorities or national broadcasting corporations (the BBC in England, Prasar Bharati in India) — is always a difficult one. The general and avowed intention in most such cases is to distance the institutions in question from the Government and to respect their freedom of management. In reality, however, governments find it difficult to accept that position. Governments in general are uncomfortable with truly independent institutions. This is so in other countries too, but it is particularly so in India. Whatever the political party in power, our Ministers (with honourable exceptions) like to exercise power and patronage in relation to such institutions, make use of them for political or other improper purposes, and treat them as their fiefdoms; and they are reluctant to part with control. It would be unfair to point an accusing finger only at Ministers in this regard: senior bureaucrats (again with honourable exceptions) are equally fond of power and patronage and equally loath to part with control; and of course bureaucrats at lower levels try to get some advantages out of their connection with such institutions and organisations. The dysfunctional relationship between the Government and `autonomous' institutions has been extensively discussed.

To that troubled history the Party now in power adds an ideological dimension. There is no need to talk of a hidden agenda here: the agenda is quite open. Over a period of time, many institutions have been brought under the control of the Government. The Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts was ostensibly rescued from the control of those who had tried to convert it into a private empire, but in effect it was destroyed. Much good work had been done there under Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan's leadership, but today it is in utter disarray. M.L. Sondhi, brought in by the ruling party as Chairman of the Indian Council of Social Science Research, was removed when he tried to maintain a degree of independence. A similar story was enacted in the case of the Indian Council of Historical Research. There is no need to elaborate this. The intention is quite clearly to bring all educational, research and cultural institutions under the ideological control of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. There is also a concerted effort to rewrite history; this is sought to be justified on the ground that existing distortions need to be corrected, but the driving force is clearly a concern for ideological correctness and not for objectivity. Whether all this is being done at the behest of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or reflects the personal predilections of the Minister, one cannot say. Perhaps there is a combination of the two factors. Unfortunately, the predilections at the political level seem to be more than matched by the bureaucracy's discomfort with any display of independence on the part of the managements of such institutions, and its desire to bring them to heel.

Parenthetically, and speaking subject to correction, it appears to this writer that the present Minister of HRD, doubtless an honourable, high-minded person, exemplifies a combination of a strong ideological bent, an unshakeable belief in his own rightness on all matters, and an imperviousness to dissenting views. That combination has already done enormous harm to many institutions, and seems likely to damage many more. Many would agree with that statement in private, but the sad fact is that we seem powerless to prevent that eventuality.

That is the background against which one has to consider the Ministry's direction to the IIMs on the subject of fees, and the argument sometimes put forward that the IIMs do not need the large corpuses that they have. What lies behind this? A concern for the poor or a desire to reduce the financial strength of the institutions and make them dependent on the Government? Let the readers reflect on this. The Government has reportedly declined to provide a written or oral undertaking on the subject of respecting the autonomy of the IIMs. This could be because of technical or legal reasons; or it could be because the intention is in fact to reduce the IIMs to the position of subordinate offices of the Ministry. Let the readers reflect on this too.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

ELUSIVE ALLIANCE

THE COSTS OF RUPEE APPRECIATION

IIMs, fees & freedom of management

Renegotiate we must

India-U.S. talks to focus on WMD proliferation

Foreign policy in Opposition poll manifestos

Lifting of sanctions

Theft at Shantiniketan