The nation has been debating the recent decision of the HRD Ministry on the cut in tuition fee for PG courses in IIM. After meeting the HRD Minister Joshi, Narayanan Murthy IIM Board Chairman said that "there won't be any interference of govt on curriculum, syllabus". It is also reported that the Government slashed the IIMs' fee with a promise to cover the deficit to maintain the high education standards. There are varied opinions on this decision. Some say it is to be lauded as it opens up the gates of IIM for poor students to get in on the assumption that until now the higher fee was the barrier to them. Lot many others criticized this decision as the undesired interference of the government in the autonomy of the prestigious IIMs. They also apprehend that the quality of the IIMs would be the casualty in the near future.

Our President Dr. Abdul Kalam in his address to the nation on the eve of the Republic Day remarked that the "quality of Institutes of higher learning should not be tampered with", may be alluding to the recent decision of the HRD Ministry. One should view the entire episode taking into account the fact that the HRD Minister has been passing critical remarks on the IITs also and said that these Institutes are not effectively contributing to the nation.

It is no doubt that most of the graduates from these Institutes go abroad. But that should not be the reason why they should lose their autonomy. If a poor student graduates from IIM thanks to Mr. Joshi's graceful cut in fee and if he/she gets an opportunity to work abroad, in what way this would help in building the nation? Or is it that our honorable Minister expecting those poor students to sign an agreement with the government that after graduation he/she would not go out of the country. If the graduates of these Institutes do not contribute to nation, why the Minister wants to subsidize their education fee instead of putting a roof over the debilitated elementary school in a remote village where many poor children do not have proper clothing, food, and shelter to get primary education? A nation has to have a good brand image in higher learning also. In the name of helping the poor, if the fee cut has been announced and there is also a constant downward revision of the budgetary allocation for these Institutes, a day would come when these Institutes have to look upto the Government for resources and this would ultimately end up in losing their autonomy. It can not be said that this argument is unfounded.

There could be two ulterior motives to the decision- firstly, it is a pro-poor gimmick (we would have to analyze how many poor students could not get into IIMs because of the higher fee) and secondly it is deliberately done to reduce the autonomy of these Institutes of higher learning. The deficit that one IIM has to face because of the fee cut works out to the tune of Rs. 4-6 crores, which is negligible for the Government to compensate.

But the point to be noted is that already the allocation for the IIMs is stagnant and if at all anything, it is being reduced year after year. These IIMs are conducting professional training courses for Executives and offering consultations to Industries to bridge the gap in their budgetary needs. When the Institutes are already under strain and stretched enough, anymore burden would bring them onto government toes one day or the other. This is the worry for those who want to maintain the higher status (in terms of their brand image) of these Institutes.

But there are many who argue that reducing an extra burden of Rs. 2.5 lakhs is certainly a boon to an average middle class student. For this, the IIMs must be asked to release the statistics as to how many students had to forgo their admission in the last 3-5 years because of the exorbitant tuition fee. The banks have to be asked to give the statistics as to how many students per year had been given loan to pursue PG studies in IIMs in the last 3-5 years. These two statistics should clear the mist around the claim that reduction in fees would help the poor. If the statistics are the other way, the government need not subsidize even this 20 crores to these IIMs and this precious resource has to be s pent on strengthening our Primary education. There are many villages which do not have proper schools and enough teachers to teach the children.

When the IIMs have the capacity to generate their resources and the IIM graduates who take loan from banks can repay that loan, given the fact that their starting salaries would be umpteen times the loan amount in the first year of employment, there is no rational whatsoever to waste this precious resource in subsidizing the IIMs. There are also many who argue that this way only primary education would be the reach of the poor and lower middle class and only the rich can have higher education in the premier institutes.

Let us pass for a moment and answer a question: Is it the responsibility of a government to provide a broad based primary education to all children at free of cost or it is its responsibility to do a cosmetic service by enabling a very meager % of the poor to get PG degrees from IIMs? The answer is quite obvious. If one agrees that the answer is quite obvious, the slash in tuition fees is nothing but a political gimmick and has an ulterior motive. This should be fought tooth and nail by those who care for the 100% literacy in the nation and who care for the brand image and the enabler for maintaining it i.e. the autonomy of the prestigious institutes of higher learning.