Standing up to Big Bully Brother

The words reported in the press were that the Government had given an ‘‘undertaking’’. Then in less than 48 hours the honourable HRD Minister was on television saying he had given no such thing, and was pretty chillingly headmasterly about what he thought about the same places whose autonomy his ministry was supposed to have given an ‘‘undertaking’’ in court to protect.

I wonder who got the message wrong—the press, the court or the lawyer arguing for the PIL. As one newspaper put it, it is confusing, with both sides saying that they had ‘‘won’’.( Frankly the truth of the matter, if one were to be honest about it, is that in this ugly situation, everybody loses.)

The IIMA Society (the group comprising representatives of Government, industry—sort of conceptually like the shareholders of a company) decides to convene a meeting, as it needed to do, to ‘‘discuss issues arising from the order issued by the HRD Ministry’’. Interested members, some 20 odd people representing various society constituents, turn up for the meeting. Some of them have seen IIMA through its four decades, and have been through many meetings of the Society.

Also present at this meeting are two key people from the HRD Ministry—the Joint Secretary and the Financial Adviser. What happens at the meeting, based on what the IIMA Society has said, and the press reports, is that the ministry representatives go on a verbal bullying binge, saying things that certainly do not sound like they have any intention of upholding the autonomy of the institution. They apparently forcefully state that the Government has wide and far-reaching powers (welcome to Orwellian Joshiland; it’s 1984, and Big Brother is HERE).

They say that seeking judicial settlement amounts to confrontation with the Government. I don’t understand bureaucratic speak. But is that a veiled threat that the Big Brother can finish you off? I thought this was ok in a democracy, and how can you take objection to that? If two sides disagree on something, how can you take umbrage to one side saying it wants an even bigger brother to mediate?

Then they say the Government can supersede/dismiss the Society, if they take any legal recourse. Dismissing the Society is an interesting idea. Especially with convocation around the corner, and the list of graduating students to be approved by the Society. So no Society, no convocation!

Then they reportedly say that because of a certain technicality, all the past fee increases implemented were illegal as no by-laws were framed and therefore the Government can ask the Society to deposit all those fee increases of the past 40 years with the Government. Even more interesting. No corpus. No revenue. Only a mountain of IOUs.

Finally, but of course, they reportedly say the Director could be acted against (presumably that is bureaucratese for ‘‘sacked’’?). I guess having a spine and having conviction is a sackable offence. So now, no Society, no convocation, no Director, and of course if the Society is not valid, the board members appointed by the Society are not valid too.

This is the assurance of autonomy given—or was it not given—in the Supreme Court? Reminds me of a very old joke, not genteel and decent but appropriate; so please forgive me, bad taste seems to be in the air. There is this Big Red Chief who is totally constipated. His Man Friday goes to the medicine man and says solemnly ‘‘Big Chief, no s**t’’. He is given a dose of laxative which does not work. Man Friday goes back again and again, and Big Chief is treated with ever increasing doses of the laxative. Then Man Friday goes to the medicine man and reports with a big smile of relief ‘‘Big s**t, no chief’’. So no society, no convocation, no director—just a big mess to be cleaned up.

Now comes the other thing that bemuses me, traumatised as I am by the concept of wireless wimps that this paper has unleashed on me. The IIMA Society members felt that despite everything, there was tradition, and decorum and good conduct, and that in this atmosphere, to push agendas and shout down or vote out Big Brother was not correct. So let us adjourn, they said, and meet again when we can have a rational debate, when we can disagree, without being so disagreeable. Some folks who heard this outside said it was utter foolishness. Where was the gumption? The tactical skill? They echoed the famous Gabbar Singh line: Kitney aadmi the?

But you know what? As a part time academic at this institute, as someone who really loves the kids that I teach, I would rather they had the Society’s behaviour as a role model rather than the behaviour of the powers that be. Call me a wimp. Call me stupid. Crow in all the newspaper headlines about ‘‘Joshi wins round two’’. But I think that IIMA trains young, impressionable men and women to take up leadership positions in the country. And I would rather that they lead with the spirit of goodness and with a strong sense of right and wrong, than with an obsession to win at any cost—especially if that means saying different things in different places and throwing weight and power around.