Building excellence, replicating it: Anil K Gupta

February 18, 2013:The Indian Express

It is not worthwhile to comment on the IIM bill without first asking how excellence is built and how government can learn from it. After all, it is more difficult to build institutions of excellence in higher education than to destroy them. One does not always need the government to do so; personally ambitious educationists, mediocre leadership and boards vulnerable to lobbying can do so much more easily. The IIMs can be divided into three groups: the top three, A, B, C, perhaps in that order; then the next three or four slightly older IIMs; and finally the new IIMs. Their need for governance and support are at variance. Some need mentoring by the oldest IIMs and others need much more support to be autonomous and assertive. All of them need to be accountable to stakeholders so as to serve the country’s larger needs.
 
The first challenge is to make leaders in government sit with the faculty of the top three IIMs (not just with directors and chairpersons), understand the way excellence was achieved and learn ways of replicating it. Excellence cannot be delegated, or learnt from a few position-holders who may or may not have achieved it personally. Once the HRD ministry listens to the faculty, it may realise the extraordinary scope that exists in drawing upon institutions of excellence to meet various challenges.
 
It should be remembered that when the IIMs were attaining excellence, they were supported by government a great deal. To say government support is not needed anymore is not true. Even top IIMs need government help to serve those constituencies that deserve their services, but cannot desire them due to the costs. How do such constituents, be they educational institutions in the Northeast, J& K or other conflict-prone regions, get served by the best? The connect between society and institutions of excellence needs a new social contract.
 
Lest the bogey of government help being a kiss of death come up again and again, let me ask a simple question. Take the top five or 10 institutions in any field, are they not all public institutions? We need public-private partnership, but handing over top institutes to private czars will do more harm than good. The IIMA has already had such partnerships. Are not top institutes like the IISC, ISI, TIFR, JNU not funded by government completely? Is it not true that despite considerable government funding, autonomy can be achieved and maintained? But this support need not be monitored through administrative councils or bodies. IIMs are part of the state already.
 
Let there be new indicators of service to the nation: faculty governance, controlling the tendency to restrict autonomy, developing new concepts, innovative pedagogy and curriculum etc. Harvard and MIT joined hands recently to provide online open access courses to deserving students worldwide. Shouldn’t the IIMs also be seen as the largest provider of open-source multi-media, multi-lingual content? Wouldn’t that need resources? Have alumni contributed such resources in India to warrant greater control?
 
Rather than hoping that importing leaders will make these institutions greater, more confidence needs to be reposed in indigenous talent. Let us rethink how boards of governors for institutions of excellence are chosen — placing mediocre people there will breed mediocrity and kill the urge for excellence.
 
One of the hallmarks of excellence is faculty governance, which has come under terrible strain recently. This is not because of government interference but myopic policies of the board, and autonomy being confused with autocracy by some.
 
We need to ensure transparency in all activities. Society craves for openness, experimentation and innovation. At this juncture, we need a bold dialogue and a new social contract among academia, industry and government on good governance, transparency, promotion of social and economic entrepreneurship.
 
No doubt, other stakeholders need to be consulted. Though the government has clarified the proposed IIM council is a discussion and not a decision-making body, in the past, such consultations were used to claim consensus. So any views expressed by the respective directors on behalf of faculty should first be discussed at the respective faculty council meetings. Innovative potential at all levels has to be harnessed for the common good. It is unlikely to happen when new arrangements are designed without listening to those who have helped achieve excellence.
 
The time has come for institutions that demand greater transparency and accountability of others to set a new example. The social, industrial and cultural connects between institutions of higher education and society have to be forged afresh. The public purpose of public institutions needs to be redefined and a new social contract forged between institutions of excellence and society through the government and other stakeholders.