Praiseworthy as much as the Institute of Eminence scheme is, there are some pressing questions the Government must answer
I suspected something amiss about the Government’s decision last year to accord Institute of Eminence (IoE) status to several educational institutions across the country. I had also filed an RTI application, seeking the list of applicant universities. After much delay, my application was denied, both at the first instance and on appeal. One can understand that the Ministry of Human Resource Development must be very busy and that the ruling Government’s track record on RTIs is cautious, but why evade such a simple query? Let’s take a quick recap of events that followed. The IoE programme aimed to reward 10 public and 10 private universities with special autonomy, in addition to generous funding for the former. Greenfield projects, too, were eligible. Ostensibly, the goal is to push these academies high on the World University Ranking list, where India’s performance is woeful and to emulate what the Chinese have done with Peking, Tsinghua and Renmin among others.
The Government appointed an empowered expert committee to select 20 universities, comprising former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami (chair), Harvard Business School professor Tarun Khanna, University of Houston Chancellor and president Renu Khator and former IIM Lucknow Director Pritam Singh. Each applicant university had to pay Rs 1 crore as processing fee, with three-quarter of the amount refunded for unsuccessful applicants. From 100-odd applicants, the committee recommended 11 names: In the public category, four IITs (Delhi, Bombay, Kharagpur and Madras); Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; Delhi University; Jadavpur University and Anna University. For the private category, it selected BITS Pilani, Manipal and Jio Institute. The Government selected only IIT Delhi and Bombay, IISc, BITS Pilani, Manipal University and Jio Institute (this decision was subject to many political barbs and internet memes but to be fair, Mukesh Ambani undoubtedly has the financial resources to create an impressive university). After months of dithering, the committee recommended 19 more names (thus, a total of 15 public and 15 private universities). The new list was fairly eclectic.
Public universities recommended included Banaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim University, Tezpur University, Pune University and Panjab University. Private ones included two liberal arts colleges (Ashoka University and the Krea University), Azim Premji University, two newish institutes focussing on public health and urban studies and KIIT. The University Grants Commission went back to the Government as the committee had exceeded its mandate by recommending 30 universities instead of 20. The Times of India on January 30 reported that the scheme would probably be stalled until the elections. Meanwhile, a couple of days ago, The Print sensationally claimed that the Intelligence Bureau had red-flagged some of the recommended private universities. Apparently, it was concerned that Krea was guided by Raghuram Rajan and Anu Aga, Ashoka University by Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Ashish Dhawan and Azim Premji University by its eponymous founder — all of whom are classified as critics of the Government. Just what this had to do with IoE status wasn’t quite clear.
I could spend the rest of the column diagnosing the flaws in an otherwise praiseworthy scheme and the ills of our bureaucracy but since the present Government’s term is ending soon, I’d prefer to list eight pressing questions. First, can the Government confirm that the scheme is paralysed until the elections? Second, why have 11 institutes, that were recommended originally, not been granted IoE status? Why, therefore, have Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (with two universities each in the remaining five: IIT Kharagpur and Madras, Jadavpur and Anna) received a raw deal? Third, even in the list of 30, some well-known applicant universities, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University, IIT Kanpur, Indian School of Business, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, older IIMs and various other science institutes have been excluded when some already feature in subject-specific world rankings? And when the committee’s second list names specialist institutions of lesser repute, why the discrimination? Third, what happens to renowned institutions specialising in medicine, law and architecture, which did not apply for IoE status? Any plan to award them additional funding and autonomy? Fourth, have unsuccessful applicants been refunded, as promised? What should we make of an Indian Express report (September 1, 2018) claiming that IIM Calcutta was awaiting its refund? Fifth, on the subject of money, what remuneration was paid to the members of the committee for an obviously disappointing job? Seventh, will these members speak up and explain what went wrong? In the US, the media and public would demand answers from Khanna and Khator had they been on a similar committee. Why the reticence here? Eight, Government sources have rubbished media reports. Who is correct? A response would be much appreciated.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School and Scientia Doctoral Scholar, University of New South Wales)
