Nurturing Autonomy or promoting autocracy—the case of AIIMS | Girish Nikam

Published on 22-10-2007 In National

Viewed 1322 times

Nurturing Autonomy or promoting autocracy—the case of AIIMS

Autonomy is an all too familiar word. It keeps cropping up frequently from our individual lives to international politics.

In recent times, autonomy became a major issue, in connection with Central Government higher educational institutions. Anything to do with IIMs and IITs, for instance, gets maximum media attention, as well as that of the newspaper reading public, not to talk about the TV viewers.

It was no wonder therefore that when the previous NDA Government's HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi tried to bring about some changes in these prestigious institutions, a hue and cry was raised in the media. Similarly, his successor and present HRD Minister Arjun Singh, has been the butt of criticism for what is seen by many educated urban classes as efforts to take these institutions under his control with sinister motives.

In these times of high intensity cynicism against the political class, the dice is always rolling in favour of those who are seen as standing up to the politicians. Nowadays Media, when it comes to such issues, would rather be in tune with the public sentiments than going in depth into the story.

Autonomy to the intellectual and chattering classes therefore means giving the technocrats and professionals a free hand to run these institutions. On the face of it, it is the ideal. Who would know better to run an IIT or an IIM, than the professionals in the respective fields? How can a politician, most of whom are seen as educationally and intellectually-challenged, try to run or control such institutions, is the oft-heard argument cum criticism.

But what does autonomy to these institutions which are essentially fully funded by the Central Government mean?

Now take the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), here in the capital. Everyone knows about the pitched battle being fought by the Director of the AIIMS, Dr.P.Venugopal, a renowned heart surgeon with the Union Health Minister Dr.Anbumani Ramadoss. When the UPA Government came to power in 2004, one of the minor partners in it, the PMK, demanded its pound of flesh, for extending its support. Since the leader of that Party, Dr.A.Ramadoss had a young son, whose political career had just been launched and the son happened to be a medical doctor, the PMK leader insisted he should get the Health portfolio and got it.

The young Dr.Ramadoss, in his excitement of having landed the top job in his profession so unexpectedly, displayed his impetuosity and immaturity, by wanting to take control of the situation in AIIMS. For any doctor worth his salt or an aspiring one, a stint in AIIMS is considered the most prestigious. And just imagine how this young doctor must have felt becoming the Boss of AIIMS, virtually, who in normal circumstances would have been thrilled getting a job as an Assistant Professor. Well politics all over the world has this capacity to make and unmake people. No grudges there.

But the Young doc's over-enthusiasm to control and change the way AIIMS was functioning was dubbed as an assault on the autonomy of the prestigious institute. When Dr.Venugopal opposed the Minister, the media and the common man in general saw it as another instance of politicians trying to control institutions, and Dr.Venugopal fashioned himself soon as a protector of AIIMS autonomy. When the matter went to the High court and Supreme Court, after Dr.Ramadoss tried to retire Dr.

Venugopal, the courts were harsh on the Minister, and fully backed Dr.Venugopal. Even the judiciary saw it as a clear case of challenging the autonomy. It refused to take note of the series of callous indifference and flagrant violation of all laws and rules by Dr.Venugopal. The champion of autonomy has to be protected, seems to have been the judicial dictum.

A couple of weeks back however Dr.Venugopal displayed his real colour, raising the serious question---- was he championing the autonomy of AIIMS or his own personal autonomy to act at will in, what he seems to have assumed as, his kingdom!

What set forth these questions, which even the normally supportive media started asking was, is Dr.Venugopal acting in the interest of AIIMS or his own personal interest. The case which threw up these questions, was the way in which he sought to remove his colleague of over three and half decades and an equally, if not more, competent and eminent fellow heart surgeon, Dr.A.Sampath Kumar from the headship of the Cardio Vascular Department and the Chairmanship of the Cardio-Neuro(CN) Centre. The "crime" of Dr.Sampath (an alumnus of Bangalore Medical College) was, as the HOD he had taken note of a serious case of medical negligence of a doctor in his department, which was suspected to have lead to the death of a patient.

And as expected of him in his position he reported the matter to the President of the Institute, incidentally, the Minister Dr.Ramadoss, as well as Dr.Venugopal. The Minister promptly initiated action and suspended suspected negligent doctor and ordered an enquiry. Dr.Venugopal went ballistic and not only cancelled the Minister's orders and reinstated the doctor, a camp follower, after a sham parallel enquiry gave him a clean chit, but also went ahead and pulled up an old alleged case of negligence of Dr.Sampath Kumar and got an enquiry ordered. He also sought to remove Dr.Kumar as the Head and what is worse, is even seeking to get his license suspended by the Indian Medical Council.

Is this all being done for protecting the autonomy of the AIIMS? Or is this autocracy of a Director in the name of protecting the autonomy? Should such prestigious autonomous institutions become hand-maiden and personal fiefdoms of such Directors? Is Government of India which funds and finances these institutions sit and watch helplessly as these Directors flout all norms and refuse to be accountable to anyone?

Remember the case of Verghese Kurian, the man who gave Amul to the world? Sadly he also had developed such tendencies, when he wanted to continue as life time chairman of the Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), which he had set up. Obviously he thought he was inevitable to the Institute and that he was bigger than the institution he built. He had to go.

The contribution of Venugopals and Kurians can never be under-estimated when it comes to their respective fields, and should not be. But one should not mix up their professional achievements and their administrative abilities. The autonomy of their institutions is indeed to be protected and nurtured. But not their autocratic administrative ways, which can not only erode the quality of these prestigious institutions, but also drive away the world class talent we find there still, luckily. Not to talk about the effect it will have on students and in the case of AIIMS, the raison d'etre for its existence, the patients.

0 Comments

Blog

Print