Anil Gupta writes on how the IIMs and IITs deserve more respect and credit for what they have done, though there is far more the state needs to do in India

A statement by a cabinet minister has triggered countrywide debate about how IITs and IIMs have earned their reputation. The argument is that these institutions are respected because of the quality of the students and not because of the faculty. There is no doubt that these institutions attract some of the best students of whom we are really proud of. But teaching bright students is no less challenging. A great deal of improvement of course needs to be brought about in the quality of research and teaching at these institutions. The way to do that is not to denigrate them, but to engage with the renowned scholars in these institutions. There are, however, larger issues that we need to worry about.

Today, India has produced global benchmarks in eye care, heart care, promoting grassroots innovations, sending the most economical mission to moon and putting ten satellites in different orbits in a single launch, five of which were made abroad. There must be a method in the madness. The time has passed when India should evaluate all its achievements by western standards. There are areas where India is creating standards by which the world measures its performance. A country that cannot take pride in its achievements suffers. Time and again, argument is made that IITs and IIMs and other institutions of higher learning are not doing so well because they are fully state-funded. By implication, the private-funded institutions should be on the top in each discipline. Unfortunately, facts don’t bear it out. The top academic institutions, almost without exception, are public-funded. But there are a large number of public-funded institutions that are of poor quality. So are the private-funded institutions. We should debate therefore whether the nature and mode of public funding should be modified to make other institutions as good.

There is no doubt that IITs and IIMs receive some of the best students. I am not sure, however, that we cannot receive even better students if we reduce our reliance on only quantitative scores and instead focus on multiple intelligence. With all the limitation of measurement, should we assume that the best students would go to the institutions where faculty is not up to the mark? Don’t we realise that students have a choice and they can easily go to private-funded institutions, if they have better faculty. It is true that far more can be brought out by harnessing the energy of the students than what is done today. To promote originality and innovativeness, in 2002 I proposed a portal to put the summaries of all the projects done by about a million technology students every year. Till 2009, I could not do anything nor could I mobilise support from the state. In 2009, a student of NIT, Surat, Hiranmay Mahanta helped in creating techpedia.in with support from a voluntary organisation. Today, it has more than 1,00,000 projects done by 3,50,000 students from over 500 technology institutions, including IITs, NITs and others. How else can accountability of students and the faculty be judged by society unless the output is available for scrutiny? One cannot find projects of students from MIT and Stanford, Cambridge and Oxford at one place. In India, it has been done without support from UGC, AICTE, HRD, etc. The quality of the projects will also help us find out the faculty who are guiding outstanding projects. Investing in this faculty would create a foundation for an Indian model for inclusive innovation and excellence. But we are not debating such models.

It is true that a great deal of effort is required to nurture excellence in institutions of higher learning. The first right to comment is of the academics who have achieved excellence and are respected around the world. The impact of their work should be measurable by unambiguous indicators. Any institution builder who is serious about nurturing excellence would first identify such outstanding achievers in each discipline and listen to them. It will be useful to ask the ministers concerned if they can list even five people in any discipline and when they talked to them last.

There are no short cuts in nurturing excellence. If native genius cannot influence public policy and institutions adequately, we should not grumble. It is our country and we have to collectively find answers. Just as we can’t outsource governance to so-called world class politicians, we can’t outsource the task of generating excellence in educational institutions to other countries. Building institutions takes years. We should ask ourselves whether the process of appointing the heads of these institutions could be better. We should also ask ourselves whether the concept of faculty governance has been adequately strengthened. When leaders seek support from above, they lose legitimacy below. It is true of political structures and it is also true of institutions of higher learning. Our space programme is one of the best in the world. It is true that they did not hire an IITian after the 1990s. If they could do so much without the best engineers, how much more could they do if they could attract the best they want? The same applies to DRDO, atomic energy and other strategic sectors. An eco system that promotes innovation, inclusion and excellence by crossing sectoral, hierarchical and other organisational boundaries will nurture excellence in every link of the chain. Bipartisan approach in appointments, providing support and respecting autonomy is necessary. Let us ask the hard questions. Gramsci once said, in war you attack the enemy at his weakest but in an intellectual argument, you attack the enemy at his strongest. I have tried to address the strongest argument of the minister.

Anil Gupta is a professor at IIM Ahmedabad.
anilg@iimahd.ernet.in