The
government has notified new rules for the IIMs consequent to the IIM Bill 2023
being passed in Parliament last July, that is, within four months of the Bill
having been passed.
That is
quite striking. It is not common for bills to be passed or notified so quickly.
In the case of IIMs, any changes to rules would take a fairly long time to
happen. First, there would be consultations with the directors of the leading
IIMs, if not all IIMs. Then a discussion paper would follow with the public
invited to respond. After that changes would be negotiated with the IIMs.
Not so with
the IIM Bill 2023. It was introduced in Parliament in July 2023. The next week,
the Lok Sabha passed it. The following week the Rajya Sabha passed it. The
changes were duly notified in the government gazette mid- August. No
discussion, no negotiation, no waffling.
This is
decisiveness of an order not seen in government. What could be the explanation?
I believe the government sensed that a governance emergency had arisen in the IIM
system, one that required a swift response if the IIM brand was not to suffer
lasting damage.
Ever since
the IIM Act came into force in January 2018, accountability in the IIM system
had flown out of the window. Directors and boards at various places behaved as
though they were accountable to none. At least two leading IIMs, IIMA and IIMC,
witnessed turmoil of a sort not seen during the long years when government had
better control over the IIMs.
In the new
scheme of things, the government, through the Visitor (the President of India),
can dissolve an IIM board on three grounds- if it was satisfied the board was
not performing its duties, failed to carry out directions given by the Visitor
or in the public interest. It can also remove any director without reference to
the board. It will have the final say in the appointment of Chairmen and
directors of IIMs.
I believe
the government has grounds to proceed against several of the IIM boards under
the powers it has assumed. The overwhelming majority of the IIM boards have failed
to comply with the requirement under the IIM Act of having an independent
review done within three years of the passing of the IIM Act. The couple of
review reports I have seen are pathetic documents- they sound more like
official brochures than an independent management audit. Many IIMs have been
non-compliant with the Constitutional requirement of reservations for
designated categories in faculty recruitment.
We have to
wait and see. In the meantime, the ushering in of a modicum of accountability
into the IIM system deserves three cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment