Free To Choose?

Suhel Seth, a compelling debater, has in the 19th April issue of The Hindustan Times looked at the IIT-IIM imbroglio from an interesting angle. He has dissected the debate from what he callsfour "facts". His observations are interesting and deserve a reply.Interesting, because this is the first real defence of the establishment from an actor in the emerging freemarket that is India.

'Fact' #1

The thrust of this 'fact' basically questions Mr. NR Narayamurthy's locus standi in the standoff. Thevery person he is pitted against has bestowed the chair upon Mr. Murthy. This is factually correct, and it isalso likely that in his acceptance letter, Mr. Murthy would have expressed his sincere gratitude for being sohonoured. Of course, had Mr. Gilderoy Lockhart been considered, IIM-A would have been the party expressing thesentiment. Well, Mr. Murthy is no Lockhart, so let's leave it at that. 

But coming to the question ofappointing the likes of Mr. Murthy as Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the IITs and IIMs, what isthe purpose behind it all? These institutions are not corporations expected to pay hefty dividends year afteryear. These are after all academic institutions, doling out academic qualifications at the end of a stipulatedperiod. Then why bother considering these gents at all? When appointed and asked to do their"bidding", why are they acting as if they own the place?

The root of the answer to this vexing question can be traced to 1947 when India discovered independence after a thousand years of foreignrule and had to grapple with and grasp the meaning ofindependence. Independence meant you could travel by train ticket-less. It also meant you could decide to havethe colony garbage dump cleared. It was a time when we had a population of 33 crore, ill-fed, ill-educated,unemployed and such like, and still in thrall of the white skin. Not just statistics, but a mental frame faced thefounding fathers of the nation. 

They decided, as a beginning, to start a few Institutes of Technology and laterof Management, by acts of Parliament and give them the best that dedication and money could buy. What came outof this gamble are institutions that are truly unmatched in the whole world. These are institutions wheremerit alone decides who's in and who's not. Over a period of 50 years, these institutions have evolved torepresent India as a microcosm--a resurgent India, a confident India. 

The role of the state in this experimentis truly remarkable. A populace enslaved for a thousand years had thrown up 540 odd members into a roundbuilding. 540 members credited (somewhat unfairly), with every conceivable vice under the sun, their integrityquestioned almost on a daily basis. And yet, these very worthies had the vision of creating the IITs and theIIMs.

The institutions were created not merely for doling out degree certificates. The vision was to choose thebrightest youngsters from the country, put them together in an environment which teaches not just Shrődinger'sequations, but an attitude for life itself. 

Captains of industry in the Board of Governors come in at thisjuncture. To imagine that the Chairmanship of the Board of Governors as a sop is grievously misplaced. Thelikes of M/s. Murthy, Russi Modi and Bhargava act as role models, benchmarks and even icons for students. These are people whohave not just been there and done that; but those have contributed far more than most gentlemen in public life. 

They don't do it for money, and they have enough work in their corporate lives anyway to keep them busyseven days a week. And yet these men who have no stake and clearly no fortunes to make, and are willinglymaking time from their overextended schedules to do something for which they don't expect any overt gratitudefrom anyone, are attracting the wrath of the establishment. (Mr. Murthy, out of his annual income from Infosys,can pay for the education of all students in IIM-A). It is this human quality of standing up for your beliefs, which young India has to emulate. It isthe IIMs and IITs, which have to gain from association with Mr. Murthy more than the other way round.

Here Mr. Seth questions the rights of Mr. Murthy's supporters to protest fee cuts. On the surface this is a validquestion. The point he misses out is what the purpose then of having a BOG is. The purpose is to involve rolemodels in nurturing these state-sponsored experiments and transform them into something we can be truly proudof. Institutes about which even those unfortunate enough to have failed to cross their portals can stillproudly say, "My country has created this great institution". 

It is nobody's case that theseinstitutes should have charged the students fees at actuals from their inception date. Yet a day has to come whenthese institutes can be weaned away from tax payers’ largesse. This is the right thing to do. The honourablething to do. This can come about through student fees, alumni contributions/endowments and earnings of theinstitute. The keyword here is "weaning away". There can be no absolutes in this process. The IIT alumnimade a beginning for their alma mater. The honorable minister brutally scuttled this endeavour. No oneprotested loudly enough. That puts to rest Suhel  Seth's argument for corporate funding of the IIMs.

Having tamed the IIT alumni, the minister then decided to fix the IIMs. Only he did not anticipate such aresounding demonstration. The pitch has been given an interesting twist by the participation of both theGovernors as well as the students. It is here that Suhel Seth makes the mistaken assumption that Chairmen ofthe Board of Governors are not entitled to be passionate about their institutions. 

As far as their rights areconcerned, a thorough rethink of the government's rights should also be done. These institutions have seen anumber of governments. Acts of Parliament and, importantly, not Ordinances, of the GoI have created them. Thegovernment of the day is really the custodian and not the owner of these Institutions. If the custodian is setto do something very stupid, who then is in any position to cry foul, but the Board of Governors? As far asthe government's assurance to make good the shortfall, that is akin to metamorphosing a potentially self-sustainingorganisation into a parasite.

Suhel Seth compares the relative expense of education at IITs and IIMs. The question here isreally of principle. IITs have a proud alumni association. Some of them took upon themselves to bestow aportion of their fortunes to their alma mater. The moment this sentiment reached a critical mass, thehonorable minister created the Bharat Shiksha Kosh, a fund into which the alumni were free to sink theirfortunes. Thereafter, the establishment would decide the fate of the spoils. Understandably, few IITians todaytalk about contributing money to their alma mater. 

The first wavering step towards self-reliance had beeneffectively neutralised. The fact that the protestations have not been feverish enough for Mr. Seth does notimply that the autonomy of the IITs has not been affected. Denial of self-reliance is denial of autonomy. 

In fact Mr. Seth had just to read the headlines of the same edition on the establishment's interference inthe IITs. The ministry has taken to task IIT, Mumbai on the construction of hostel accommodation. The factsare as follows:

Total Cost - Rs 35 crores
Mr. N Nilekani - Rs 25 crores
GoI - Rs 10 crores
Total acco - 1064 students
Cost to exchequer/student - Rs 94,000.

Which State sponsored LIG scheme in this country provides accommodation @ Rs 94,000/ head? And yet theestablishment has all the time to pore through cost of tower bolts and WCs for the Hostels. Suhel Seth'scontention that the IITs are far more disadvantaged and yet so uncomplaining assumes the proportions ofperverse logic: "If I can kick X, without him yelling, how dare Y yell when I kick him".

'Fact' #4 

Suhel  Seth seems to have gone completely berserk by the time he reaches his "Fact #4". He assumes that the moment the IIMs are given a chance to pegtheir own fees, huge disparities will appear within the IIMs themselves and all hell will break loose. Does hereally believe that some IIM board would decide to charge outrageous fees? In the unlikely event they do,corrective mechanisms can still be activated to bring about a semblance of order.

A word needs to be included on the "India Shining- Feel Good" hype. There is undeniablya shine to this country today. It is in the domain of knowledge-based industry and the financial sector. Onecan hardly deny the contribution of the founding fathers’ faith in modern education, which is todaymanifesting itself in the resurgence of India. In the previous paragraph, I have left room for Suhel Seth, oneof the most impressive debaters of the country, to say "Got You!" on the "correctivemechanism" bit. Well, that’s affirmative. I am only reminded of Prof. Albus Dumbledore's sermon,"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

Every contingency cannot and should not be written into the rule-book (A visit to the friendly neighbourhoodCorporation office should be convincing enough). The choices we make ultimately determine what kind of nationwe aspire to be. On one hand we have the honourable minister, during whose tenure as a university don a greatinstitution went to seed. On the other hand we have a son of a poor schoolteacher who in one lifetime createdjobs and fortunes for thousands and more importantly a name for India, globally, in the knowledge-basedindustry. 

This is a choice the country has to make for itself.