Kurien slams Joshi: This is meddling, dangerous

Kurien’s report—which has been submitted as part of the PIL filed against Joshi’s decision—was accepted by the Rao government at a time when economic reforms were in their nascent stage.

It had unequivocally recommended minimum government role in financing the IIMs: ‘‘Every Institute (IIM) should pursue a policy of progressively moving towards full cost recovery in its education and training its post-graduate programmes and management development programme.’’

It was after his recommendation, that the government reduced funds and the IIMs increased fees proportionately to the existing level of about Rs 1.50 lakh.

It’s no surprise that Joshi’s circular makes no mention of the Kurien report because it highlights how retrograde his decision is. ‘‘By accepting the fee cut, the institutes stand to lose their independent character,’’ Kurien told The Indian Express today. ‘‘The only fallout of this will be that education standards of these institutes will get lowered.’’

Speaking from his Anand home, Kurien expressed surprise that his report would be effectively buried. ‘‘At that time, Murli Manohar Joshi was not there but the government had accepted my report,’’ he said.

He criticised the Government’s excuse that cutting fees would make IIMs more accessible to weaker sections of the society. ‘‘I don’t agree that by reducing fees, the governmnet is helping poor students. For this, the government can constitute scholarships and fellowships. All institutes, including Indian Institute of Rural Management, Anand, (IIRMA), have seats reserved for weaker sections…We always try our best,’’ he said.

‘‘The Government’s interference in IIMs is not very healthy. The Government should instead focus on primary education where a majority of students end up. Afterwards, the good ones will end in IIM. And why not?’’

Taking exception to Joshi’s tag of ‘‘elitist’’ to justify the fee cut, Kurien said: ‘‘There is nothing wrong in these institutes being called elitist…preference has to be given to elitist institutions…All who study there are Indians and know the realities of India as well as anybody else.’’

‘‘If excellence is not encouraged,’’ Kurien said, ‘‘it depresses everything — excellence in education as well as students.’’

Kurien’s report had envisaged that the Government’s role should be only in the form of giving ‘‘block’’ contributions. ‘‘There should be establishment of a corpus fund for each institute with contributions from Government, industry and other sources. Government support should be in the form of block contributions to the finances of the institute,’’ the report said. And made a strong case for revenue generation by the IIMs themselves: ‘‘(The) Government should have a flexible view in providing financial support to different IIMs depending on their stage of growth, innovative programmes even as it encourages all IIMs to vigorously pursue revenue generating, cost cutting and fund raising efforts.’’