Mr Javadekar's agenda

The IIM issue has been fixed, but there is still a long to-do list

Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Prakash Javadekar seems to have made all the right moves so far. That, in itself, is a creditable achievement considering his predecessor Smriti Irani's penchant for bouncing from one controversy to another during her 13-month stint, as a result of which education in India was often in the limelight for the wrong reasons. In an interview to this paper, Mr Javadekar has signalled a happy ending to the constant wrangle between the prime minister's office (PMO) and Ms Irani over autonomy to the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The minister has categorically stated that the revised IIM Bill will give more autonomy to the premier institutes, including allowing them to grant degrees. This means the new HRD minister has agreed to relinquish the government's role in appointing the chairman of the board of governors at all IIMs. In May, Ms Irani had rejected the recommendations of an expert panel, which had suggested the names of some corporate stalwarts for the chairman of IIM-Ahmedabad. Ms Irani had given no reason for the rejection and her decision was seen as another attack on the autonomy of the premier B-schools. According to the previous version of the Bill, the chairman of an IIM had to be appointed by the President in consultation with the board of governors. This, in effect, would have given the government the last word on the selection for the post - a clause the PMO wanted to be deleted from the draft Bill.

What was more disconcerting - and it betrayed Ms Irani's distrust of the authorities of academic institutes - was the way two new clauses were introduced unilaterally by the ministry. They talked about "regulations made by the board with the approval of the central government," wanted a "coordination forum", whose role was to "deliberate on matters of common interest" (whatever that meant) and to "perform such other functions as may be referred to it by the central government." This was nothing but an attempt to make the IIMs handmaidens of the ministry.

Having sorted out the IIM autonomy issue, Mr Javadekar would do well to look at other substantive steps such as bolstering skills education and creating an effective regulatory structure for higher education. If these require reforming the AICTE, which governs technical education, and the UGC, which regulates higher education, so be it. In recent times, universities have disapproved of an "excessive control mechanism" that obliges them to seek the permission of the UGC on administrative and financial matters. Then there are issues such as poor student-teacher ratios in non-IIM management schools.

The other pressing area of concern for the ministry should be the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), which have to focus more on how to improve their performance in consultancy and patents. The quantity and quality of research and the indigenous teaching material have not been up to the mark. Instead of micro-managing IITs, the ministry must create an enabling environment by taking steps such as providing market-linked salaries to the directors and senior professors. The minister should also finalise the much-delayed National Education Policy, establish the National Academic Depository to maintain a national-level database of all academic qualifications and iron out the micro-issues plaguing school education such as over 700,000-odd vacancies for teachers in government schools.