On the proposed IIM Bill

The bill has gone through an iterative process, which includes assimilating responses over a wide range from 13 stakeholders- the IIMs, through written responses, meetings  over at least two rounds. The bill proposes to bestow the status of 'Institutes of National Importance' on the IIMs, make them more accountable, less under governmental control, with the President of India their titular head as 'Visitor'. 

The vintage of an IIM decides the response. 

There are IIM A/C founded in 1960s, IIMB founded in middle-1970s and ABC together form the global face of IIMs. Let us call them 'Senior Citizen'. They are globally recognised, almost financially independent and receive virtually no funds from MHRD. They do want the degree granting status, which will give their graduates more international acceptance. Currently, the 'post-graduate diploma' is looked at with askance in the developed world, even with the Indira Nooyis on the world stage. They resent the  small clauses which entitles the government (MRHD) some oblique, even tenuous control. 

Then there are the 'Intermediates'- IIM Lucknow (1984), IIM Indore and Kozhikode in middle to late1990s. They have gained acceptance, growing financial strength, faculty strength nearing 100, multiple programmes including outreach, and well, a modicum of respectability. Each has pioneered in a particular area. They still get some funds from MHRD, especially for development but are well on their way to adulthood and independence.

RG-IIM Shillong is an oddity, as it as the RG in front of its name, a necessity in its formation post-haste without much forethought. Shillong is desperate to shed the two letters in front which somehow seem to cast a faint shadow on its parentage!

There are IIMs between 6 and  4 years old-  6 IIMs at Raipur, Ranchi, Rohtak, Trichy, Kashipur and Udaipur. Let us call them Pre-schoolers! They are entirely dependent on MHRD for their survival. They are in different stages of developing their campus (depending upon the cooperation of the state of their location). Their 3-5 batches have graduated, have less than 30 faculty, are able to place nearly all students, do not have a permanent campus. Their fate hangs at a balance; if they do not get adequate and timely funds for their campus project they may become 'also ran' and may wither away. Interestingly, 3 of the pre-schoolers do not or very soon will not have directors!Now for the responses to the proposed bill from these four segments:

All welcome the degree granting status; are a little apprehensive about what it means to have the President as 'Visitor' and whether it is a roundabout means for continuing control of MHRD.

ABC- do not want any clause that requires them to  seek permission from MHRD. Their key demand is autonomy in almost all areas. They want clarity and documented process for areas where IIM needs to consult MHRD. 

Intermediates- L & K do not have directors for more than a year. To what extent their views and with what vehemence  have been put forward, is a matter of enquiry. Indore has more or less echoed the concerns of ABC.

Pre-schoolers are entirely dependent upon MHRD, and hence their concerns about  clauses involving 'going back to MHRD' are duly tempered. They are in no position to seek autonomy.

Newborns have no voice yet. 

Next there are the 'Newborns'- Amritsar, Bodhgaya, Nagpur, Sambalpur,  Sirmour and Vizag. All newborns are struggling to get students, faculty and facilities. Their mentors would push for the next 2-3 years to establish the temporary campus, recruit faculty,facilitate starting the process of new campus building. All do not have directors and are being run by their mentor IIMs. If newborns are funded over the preschoolers, preschoolers will starve. If preschoolers are funded, the newborns will be delayed in their development. MHRD, given limited funds, thus has a Hobson's choice between the preschoolers and the newborns. Perhaps the temporal separation of off-springs applies to humans and institutions  as well! 

Now for the responses to the proposed bill from these four segments:

All welcome the degree granting status; are a little apprehensive about what it means to have the President as 'Visitor' and whether it is a roundabout means for continuing control of MHRD.

ABC- do not want any clause that requires them to  seek permission from MHRD. Their key demand is autonomy in almost all areas. They want clarity and documented process for areas where IIM needs to consult MHRD. 

Intermediates- L & K do not have directors for more than a year. To what extent their views and with what vehemence  have been put forward, is a matter of enquiry. Indore has more or less echoed the concerns of ABC.

Pre-schoolers are entirely dependent upon MHRD, and hence their concerns about  clauses involving 'going back to MHRD' are duly tempered. They are in no position to seek autonomy.

Newborns have no voice yet.

Interesting developments have taken place in the bills torturous journey. After protracted rounds between the chairmen and directors  of 19 IIMs, the bill was sent by MHRD to PMO. Apparently, PMO is in favour of more autonomy to and more women and alumni on IIM boards, autonomy regarding fees and fewer central government nominees on the boards. The file is back with MHRD. The issue between PMO and MHRD being unresolved, the bill was not passed in the Budget Session of Parliament. Hopefully it would be enacted in the next session.