How Did Jio Become an ‘Institute of Eminence’? By a Flawed Process

Video Editors: Purnendu Pritam and Mohd Irshad Alam
Cameraperson: Abhay Sharma

There are so many things problematic in the way the government has handed out ‘Institute of Eminence’ tags, that I don’t know where to start. It’s not just Jio Institute, the entire process is riddled with decisions that are clearly flawed.

So, to the HRD Ministry and the Empowered Expert Committee that made this decision, I Have A Question.

Question 1: Why Were UGC Guidelines Violated?

First up, the Expert Committee chose six institutes from 113 eligible ones, without conducting ANY field visits or tabular rankings. Why?

The UGC guidelines that govern these Eminence tags specifically call for a tabular appraisal of all institutes and their rankings.

But the Committee didn’t seem to care. They actually said, “We did not do any ranking of institutes because we felt that it may not be fair to do so.”

I’m sorry, what? How does that even make sense? Our inter-house dramatics competition in school would require the judges to rate teams on different parameters. And this is the Government of India we’re talking about – handing out tags to institutes without even a list of rankings!

Surely, if anything is “not fair”, it’s the absence of a tabular ranking system, despite the Committee’s own guidelines making it mandatory.

Question 2: Why Were No Field Visits Made?

Next, the Expert Committee did not physically visit a single institute that applied for the tag. Their reason, believe it or not, is this: “If we were to conduct field visits of all 113 institutes, it would probably take a year.”

So what? This is a long-term project spanning a decade, right? How would a few extra months spent on field visits hurt the process?

The aim of these Eminence tags is that the chosen institutes should be able to break into the global top 500 rankings, 10 years from now. That’s 2028.

Even if the field visits took a year, compared to the one and a half months that were spent choosing the institutes, instead of 2028, the deadline for the institutes would have been 2029.

What’s more important – saving that one year of time, or ensuring that the most deserving institutes are chosen, and that too, in a transparent manner with a proper process and methodology? And to top it all off, the UGC’s own guidelines recommend field visits to applicant institutes!

Question 3: Why Such a High Entry Barrier?

For a yet-to-be-established institute to be eligible for an Eminence tag, the UGC regulations demanded that the sponsoring organisation should have members whose total net worth is Rs 5,000 crore collectively. Why such a high amount?

In 2014, the first batch of Ashoka University got going with the university having collected only Rs 145 crore.

So, was this Rs 5,000 crore requirement a deliberate, unreasonably high entry barrier?

Question 4: Exorbitant Application Fee, But No Stringent Selection Process?

Institutes that are yet to be established had to apply in the “greenfield” category and had to pay an application fee of Rs 1 crore just to be eligible for the selection process of this Eminence tag! And the Committee didn’t have the time or the inclination to even do tabular rankings of applicants? Essentially, they paid Rs 1 crore just to be allowed to make a presentation in front of the Committee!

Doesn’t the application fee seem disproportionately high in exchange for the efforts put in by the Committee?

Question 5: Why Was Jio Institute Member’s Conflict of Interest Not Addressed?

Next, a potential conflict of interest in Jio Institute’s team that went unchecked.

A man named Vinay Sheel Oberoi was part of the eight-member Jio team that made its presentation before the Empowered Expert Committee. The only problem being, Oberoi also happened to be Secretary of Higher Education in the HRD Ministry when the Institutes of Eminence scheme was announced in the Union Budget of 2016. It was called the World Class Institutes Programme at the time.

If that isn’t a clear conflict of interest, what is?

Could the Expert Committee not have asked Oberoi to recuse himself from the list of presenters for Jio Institute?

Question 6: How Can Jio Institute Be Equated With IITs, Even 3 Years from Now?

Why should a non-existent Jio Institute be given a similar badge of honour as an IIT Bombay or an IIT Delhi? Agreed that right now it’s only a letter of intent to Jio, but how will the two possibly be on par even after three years?

On one side, you have these IITs – with decades of proven academic excellence. On the other side, you have a presentation by Mukesh Ambani promising that his Jio Institute will provide great education. And both these sides will potentially be given the same honour, the same tag of Eminence?

Does that even sound reasonable to you, dear HRD Minister?

Question 7: Absolute Autonomy from UGC, But Based on What Credentials?

The Institute of Eminence tag grants absolute autonomy to Jio Institute, elevating a non-existent entity beyond the ambit of all the existing regulations and oversight of the UGC.

Reputed colleges like St Xavier’s College, Mumbai and Mount Carmel College, Bengaluru, had to work hard and meet several parameters and requirements to become autonomous colleges. But here is one *presentation* by Reliance Foundation that is enough to have done the trick!

Forget whether it’s a fair move, is it even a smart one? Isn’t providing absolute autonomy putting an unreasonably high amount of faith on an entity that is still only a proposal on paper?

Question 8: Why Recognise an Institute Yet to Be Established, and Not More Existing Ones?

When there are so many very good institutions of higher learning existing in India, why not help improve them with this Eminence tag instead of giving it to an institute that’s not even established yet?

How has this flawed process, that violates both UGC guidelines and recommendations, that had a potential conflict of interest, and makes such little practical sense, been implemented by the Union government?

The HRD Ministry and its Empowered Expert Committee have a lot to answer for. And we won’t stop asking.