The premier Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) say the recommendations of the Goverdhan Mehta committee report on the pay scales for the premier institutions were not fully accepted by the government. However, the author of the report, Goverdhan Mehta, believes that while the angst of the IIT faculty members is understandble, they should not have acted in an unbecoming manner, especially since it could affect the image of Brand IIT. In a chat with Leslie D’Monte and Kirtika Suneja, he explained, inter alia, the challenges and limitations while drafting the report. Edited excerpts:
The IIT faculty has protested against the new pay regime and expressed its angst by boycotting classes and even displaying placards. What do you feel about this as an academician?
The faculty reaction to the decision taken by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the manner of expression was indeed surprising. This has happened despite the fact that our committee had consulted all the IITs and other stakeholders and by and large accommodated most of their expectations.
It is wrong on the part of IITs to express their angst in this manner. Though their concerns are legitimate, this is no way academicians should express their angst. Their concerns, if grave, will be paid attention to but one can’t compromise on the dignity of the institution one represents or individual faculty.
Was there anything in the IIT wishlist which could not be accommodated?
Yes. There was one point of disagreement. The IIT directors wanted fresh PhDs as assistant professors and we did not allow that. We wanted PhDs with some research experience in the industry so that they can launch themselves into research immediately. Experienced PhDs have a sufficient level of maturity and independently do research and that is when they imbibe the attributes of a mentor. This could be one reason why the IITs have established themselves as premier institutes for undergraduate studies but are not known for their research.
What challenges did you face while drafting the report?
We were limited in some ways because prior to our report, two more reports had come out and had already enhanced the pay structure. However, the scenario had changed for us because a lot more institutes like IIITs, NITs, etc had come up that were not included in other reports. So, our committee had to deal with enormously diverse institutions.
The Sixth Pay Commission had already given the benefits to central government employees in the form of a generous package. Then came the UGC report on similar lines followed by our report. Our challenge was how to help the premier institutions because we could not go beyond the ambit of the UGC guidelines. So, our motivation was to provide as much benefits to the premier institutes in the backdrop of these two reports besides introducing some elements to retain, attract and encourage faculty to promote research. Our report has enhanced individual faculty’s earnings.
You were also in the panel of the Yash Pal committee on ‘Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’. Do you feel that such incidents can mar the reputation of our premier institutes?
I personally feel that such incidents would affect the reputation because being in academics you must be concerned about your conduct and conform to the values of your institute. Even if there is a feeling of being let down or angst, you must show that you are different from the rest and express it that way.
If our academicians articulate their unhappiness in such a way for a few thousands of rupees, then the institutes’ esteem will take a beating. More than money, it is the research environment and culture that attracts people to academics. So, we need to create that infrastructure and ambience for them besides the monetary compensation.
