 "Why IIIT Dharwad can't get Infosys' support")
Back in May, Sudha Murty, chairperson of Infosys Foundation and wife of IT czar Narayana Murthy, had sent across a proposal to the Union human resource development ministry, then headed by Smriti Irani. Murty had requested the government to make Infosys the industry partner for the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Dharwad.
Since Murty is also the chairperson of IIIT Dharwad, the human resource ministry was unsure of how to proceed with this request, and had duly forwarded the proposal to the law ministry for consultation. The latter has opposed the move citing conflict of interest. After all, Murty heads the philanthropic arm of Infosys, IIIT Dharwad’s proposed-industry partner.
The proposal, though unaccepted by the government, becomes part of a long-standing debate in the country on the issue of functioning and autonomy of educational institutions.
IIIT-Dharwad is part of the Union government’s proposal to set up 20 new IIITs in the country, and the establishment which aims to be a “world-class information technology institute” started its operations last year from an IT park in Hubli, Karnataka.
TT Ram Mohan, a professor at the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad, believes there’s a “matter of principle” to be considered in such cases. “We cannot allow such things; it’s about setting the right norms. Infosys is a respected institution, if you name a building after Infosys, people won’t object. But take any other XYZ corporate group; if XYZ’s head becomes the chairman and contributes 15 per cent of building funds, you can see the implications,” he says.
Another issue, says Ram Mohan, is whether a private party that contributes a mere 15 per cent of the cost of a building earns the right to have the building named after itself. “Institutions should define a minimum threshold of contribution in order to assign naming rights (say, Rs 100 crore); these rights cannot be given away cheaply,” he adds.
Keonics, a public sector enterprise, has in the recent past been associated with projects such as the setting up of a cyber-security centre in Bengaluru to tackle increasing incidents of cybercrime, as well as making the city of Belagavi the ‘second IT capital’ of the state after Bengaluru.
While reports suggest that the board of governors of IIIT Dharwad has been in favour of Infosys stepping in, it has not given any reason for supporting its decision. Murty is currently travelling and couldn’t respond to Business Standard’s queries; others on the board were either unreachable, or have declined to comment on the subject.
According to reports, Murty had also asked for change in IIIT Dharwad’s mentor institute from the Central-government run National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, to International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Bangalore, last November.
“It was the human resource development ministry’s decision. The board of governors at Dharwad felt that IIIT Bangalore was better suited to be the mentor institute because it has been our sister concern,” says VS Prakash, registrar, IIIT Bangalore.
“Getting a faculty in the IT field is very difficult, so the decision was taken specifically because it was felt that IIIT Bangalore would be able to handle the IT-related syllabus better,” he says. IIIT Bangalore’s Director S Sadagopan is also the mentor-director at IIIT Dharwad, and Murty is on IIIT Bangalore’s governing body.
Making a case for govt’s role
In rejecting Murty’s proposal, the government has raised an important question: If it’s not the philanthropically-minded people with deep pockets who are committed to an institution, then who is to monitor an institution’s progress and who is responsible for outcomes?
Institutions in the US, says Ram Mohan, have enough competition to ensure they are accountable to students on teaching quality and compete harder with each other to attract students. “This is not the case in India where we have islands of excellence and the leading IITs and IIMs do not face credible competition,” says Ram Mohan, adding that the role of government interference is necessary in India to ensure performance.
“For a top business school like ours, you can go and raise the fee and you’ll always find 400-500 people who are willing to pay that fee. But is that really in the wider interest?” he asks. When a premier institution sets high fees, competitors in the market tend to follow suit. Thus, the decision of one institution affects everyone.
The US has a long tradition of having a board of trustees and overseers in a system which has developed over a hundred years in top institutions. “These boards consist of donors, many of them are alumni, who give back large amounts to these institutions and have a large amount of commitment to these institutions,” says Ram Mohan.
However, that’s not the case in India. “Board members have little personal stake in these institutions and are not willing to devote the necessary time,” says Ram Mohan, who has touched upon the subject of autonomy in Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad (2011).
Need for change
Often, the directors of public institutions do not represent the views of staff members because some matters are either not discussed or not put to vote. “When the government deals with directors, it assumes that they speak on behalf of the community. Since they don’t, involving faculty in deliberations relating to governance would help.”
It is important, he says, for the two permanent stakeholders in public institutions— the government and faculty — to have a decisive say in such matters. The government, after all, is accountable to Parliament and ultimately to people.
Meanwhile, unless the new human resources minister after the recent Cabinet reshuffle changes things around, Keonics seems set as IIIT Dharwad’s industry partner as the institution prepares to move to its permanent home on a plot of 470 acres in Chikkamalligawad near Dharwad. The inauguration of the new campus is set for July 30.
Since Murty is also the chairperson of IIIT Dharwad, the human resource ministry was unsure of how to proceed with this request, and had duly forwarded the proposal to the law ministry for consultation. The latter has opposed the move citing conflict of interest. After all, Murty heads the philanthropic arm of Infosys, IIIT Dharwad’s proposed-industry partner.
The proposal, though unaccepted by the government, becomes part of a long-standing debate in the country on the issue of functioning and autonomy of educational institutions.
| STORY TILL NOW |
|
IIIT-Dharwad is part of the Union government’s proposal to set up 20 new IIITs in the country, and the establishment which aims to be a “world-class information technology institute” started its operations last year from an IT park in Hubli, Karnataka.
TT Ram Mohan, a professor at the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad, believes there’s a “matter of principle” to be considered in such cases. “We cannot allow such things; it’s about setting the right norms. Infosys is a respected institution, if you name a building after Infosys, people won’t object. But take any other XYZ corporate group; if XYZ’s head becomes the chairman and contributes 15 per cent of building funds, you can see the implications,” he says.
Another issue, says Ram Mohan, is whether a private party that contributes a mere 15 per cent of the cost of a building earns the right to have the building named after itself. “Institutions should define a minimum threshold of contribution in order to assign naming rights (say, Rs 100 crore); these rights cannot be given away cheaply,” he adds.
Keonics, a public sector enterprise, has in the recent past been associated with projects such as the setting up of a cyber-security centre in Bengaluru to tackle increasing incidents of cybercrime, as well as making the city of Belagavi the ‘second IT capital’ of the state after Bengaluru.
While reports suggest that the board of governors of IIIT Dharwad has been in favour of Infosys stepping in, it has not given any reason for supporting its decision. Murty is currently travelling and couldn’t respond to Business Standard’s queries; others on the board were either unreachable, or have declined to comment on the subject.
According to reports, Murty had also asked for change in IIIT Dharwad’s mentor institute from the Central-government run National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, to International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Bangalore, last November.
“It was the human resource development ministry’s decision. The board of governors at Dharwad felt that IIIT Bangalore was better suited to be the mentor institute because it has been our sister concern,” says VS Prakash, registrar, IIIT Bangalore.
“Getting a faculty in the IT field is very difficult, so the decision was taken specifically because it was felt that IIIT Bangalore would be able to handle the IT-related syllabus better,” he says. IIIT Bangalore’s Director S Sadagopan is also the mentor-director at IIIT Dharwad, and Murty is on IIIT Bangalore’s governing body.
Making a case for govt’s role
In rejecting Murty’s proposal, the government has raised an important question: If it’s not the philanthropically-minded people with deep pockets who are committed to an institution, then who is to monitor an institution’s progress and who is responsible for outcomes?
Institutions in the US, says Ram Mohan, have enough competition to ensure they are accountable to students on teaching quality and compete harder with each other to attract students. “This is not the case in India where we have islands of excellence and the leading IITs and IIMs do not face credible competition,” says Ram Mohan, adding that the role of government interference is necessary in India to ensure performance.
“For a top business school like ours, you can go and raise the fee and you’ll always find 400-500 people who are willing to pay that fee. But is that really in the wider interest?” he asks. When a premier institution sets high fees, competitors in the market tend to follow suit. Thus, the decision of one institution affects everyone.
The US has a long tradition of having a board of trustees and overseers in a system which has developed over a hundred years in top institutions. “These boards consist of donors, many of them are alumni, who give back large amounts to these institutions and have a large amount of commitment to these institutions,” says Ram Mohan.
However, that’s not the case in India. “Board members have little personal stake in these institutions and are not willing to devote the necessary time,” says Ram Mohan, who has touched upon the subject of autonomy in Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad (2011).
Need for change
Often, the directors of public institutions do not represent the views of staff members because some matters are either not discussed or not put to vote. “When the government deals with directors, it assumes that they speak on behalf of the community. Since they don’t, involving faculty in deliberations relating to governance would help.”
It is important, he says, for the two permanent stakeholders in public institutions— the government and faculty — to have a decisive say in such matters. The government, after all, is accountable to Parliament and ultimately to people.
Meanwhile, unless the new human resources minister after the recent Cabinet reshuffle changes things around, Keonics seems set as IIIT Dharwad’s industry partner as the institution prepares to move to its permanent home on a plot of 470 acres in Chikkamalligawad near Dharwad. The inauguration of the new campus is set for July 30.