Comments on the draft
IIM Bill, 2015
Reasons for the proposed law:
· Government wishes to bring all the
IIMs on a single format in respect of governance procedure, objectives, status,
power to award degrees, role of the MHRD in policy and day-to-day affairs of
the Institutes etc.
· In particular, Govt. wishes to designate
all the IIMs as Institutes of National Importance, give all of them the power
to award degrees instead of mere diplomas, create a Council on the pattern of
the IIT Council, increase the extent of Govt. control on the working of the
Institutes, empower the Govt. to issue directives on matters of policy and so
on.
My comments:
This legislation appears to be unnecessary and
counterproductive for the following reasons:
1. The IIMs have steadfastly refused to
subject themselves to the regulatory powers of the MHRD, AICTE and UGC. They
are not prepared to sacrifice their autonomy for any reason whatsoever.
2. The IIMs award diplomas, which are
rated worldwide as superior to degrees awarded by other institutions. Their
products are in great demand globally.
3. Some IIMs have built reserves through
charging of fees that the market will bear. The Govt wishes to make them
not-for-profit entities, so that they have to depend entirely on the Govt. for their
finances.
4. The frontline business schools do not
favour rigid, stratified, siloed structures or governance systems cast in
stone. They wish to retain the ability to manage a quick-changing, volatile,
uncertain, complex and ambiguous world with out-of-the-box solutions. The
governance structures have to be more networked, flat, fluent, hybrid and
agile.
5. Under the proposed law, the various
bodies are meant to be mainly composed of governmental officials or nominees.
There is little scope for bringing experts from other countries,
representatives of all the stakeholders like the alumni, the student bodies,
industry, potential employers and independent experts.
6. The Bill proposes to make it
mandatory for the Institutes to follow the directions issued by the Govt. on
matters of policy. The Institutes would like to believe that the reverse situation
should prevail, that is, the Institutes should be in a position to advise the
Govt. on what policies to pursue.
7. It is a sound idea to have a
mechanism for sharing of experiences and practices among the various
Institutes, but the Coordination forum suggested in the Bill is likely to be a
bureaucratic institution stuffed with Govt. nominees.
Conclusion:
On the whole there does
not appear to be a need to alter the status quo .It is not necessary that
uniformity would inexorably lead to better functioning. Governmental controls
are notorious for their enervating influence on institutions. Management
education is hardly a field suitable for rigid, petrified, bureaucratic control
and command mechanisms.
The Review Committee on
AICTE (2015) has in a report submitted recently
to the Government suggested that the AICTE should be truly autonomous and
should be declared as a Constitutional Authority. According to the AICTE Act
1987, management is one of the fields listed under the generic title of technical
education. In the field of education, we have to generally move towards greater
autonomy. The IIM Bill, 2015 seeks to move in the contrary direction and cannot,
therefore, be supported in its present form.
If at all some kind of framework is
to be prescribed, it should emerge out of a consensus among the IIMs
themselves. For this purpose, detailed consultations would be imperative. An
IIM Act should be drafted, if it is deemed necessary, by the IIMs themselves.
It should provide for self-regulation rather than an outside control mechanism.
No comments:
Post a Comment