The Hindu Business Line : "We need 25 IITs in the country"

There is no way that you can get faculty for so many IITs. Basically, we don’t have enough faculties even for the existing seven. And, we don’t compromise on quality.

There is no examination that can choose 1 per cent of its applicants. It is impossible to design. You have 2,50,000 applicants and you choose 4,000. That’s too tall a demand.

PROF. M. S. ANANTH, DIRECTOR, IIT-MADRAS

Prof Madaboosi Santhanam Ananth is a man in a hurry. Reappointed for a second term as Director, IIT, Madras recently, Prof Ananth has set himself an imposing agenda to fulfil before he superannuates in less than three years’ time. He hopes to complete the project of setting up a ‘virtual’ IIT on the Net that was started in his first term. The IIT Research Park, a venture designed to promote the academia-industry interface, is now in the teething stage and needs to be stabilised. Prof Ananth is also keen to promote his pet theme of having medical and engineering education in the same campus. “Medicine now is 80 per cent engineering”, he says.

In an hour-long conversation with Business Line recently, Prof Ananth, a graduate of A. C. College of Technology, Chennai and a Ph. D from University of Florida, US, came across as a person with a sharp, scientific mind and strong philosophical leanings.

Excerpts from the interview:

How did the admission process go this year?

The process was pretty much the same as last year because the Supreme Court has stayed the OBC reservations. The Oversight Committee had also clearly specified that the number of general category seats should also not decrease. So we had come to an agreement with the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) that we will do a total 13 per cent increase with a 9 per cent increase in OBC seats because that will preserve the number of general category seats. In the year after that we will do 30 per cent overall with 18 per cent for OBC; in the year after that it will be 54 per cent and 27 per cent. This will preserve the increase in seats prescribed by the Moily Committee without affecting the number of general category seats. That was the principle but in practise this 13 and 9 per cent was stopped by the Supreme Court this year. It however does give us the time to have the infrastructure ready. We are going to manage with the existing infrastructure but hopefully the MHRD will release the funds required to meet this expansion.

How much of increased funding will you need?

We have asked for something like Rs 2.5 lakhs per student per year on a recurring basis and at the rate of Rs 17 lakhs per student as a one-time payment because we have to create the infrastructure. What the oversight committee recommended was Rs 1.5 lakhs and Rs 10 lakhs respectively. We told MHRD that these figures were unrealistic especially because in our case we don’t have enough space for expansion here since we are part of a forest reserve. There is a thumb rule that such reserves should not occupy more than 25 per cent of the land as footprint. Preparing a new piece of land takes money and therefore our estimates are more realistic. Anyway, we told MHRD that if they give us only so much, you give us the balance so that we do a proper job of creating infrastructure.

The new campus has to be contiguous with your existing set up?

Obviously it can’t be. It has to be within Chennai because of a technicality. All States do not have an IIT and Tamil Nadu cannot be seen as having two.Faculty shortage is a big problem that IITs are now facing. How are you addressing it?

There is no way that you can get faculty for so many IITs, though in my estimate we need about 20-25 IITs in all. That would be the right number for a country of this size and we have only seven. Basically, we don’t have enough faculties even for these seven. We don’t compromise on quality. At IIT-Madras we have been very, very aggressively looking for faculty. In the last 5½ years we have made 230 offers, 200 have accepted and 173 have joined. On the other hand, about 150 have retired. We will be alright for some time now with the increase in retirement age to 65 years. Tremendous effort is needed to get good faculty, particularly and there is no way you are going to get them for so many IITs. Second, the salaries outside have increased tremendously. The average B. Tech who graduates out of here gets the same salary as me. Some of us above 50 years are not really complaining because our lifestyles do not need that kind of money. So we are not sorry and we like our jobs too much to quit. But, on the other hand, younger people when they join here talk of losing three times this. You know, up to one-and-a-half times nobody minds, but a starting salary that is three times or even four makes a big difference. It is very difficult for them to choose this career.

How do you circumvent this problem then?

We don’t. We just get hold of people whose heart is in research. We tell them that this is an attractive place; you have the freedom and so on.

Industry-academia interface is still at an evolutionary stage in India. What do you think needs to be done to promote this on a larger scale?

Let me give you an example. I have been talking of the Research Park for which the Tamil Nadu Government has given me 11.43 acres. We are planning three towers with one million square feet, the first of which I hope will be ready in a year’s time. These will be rented out to companies for doing R&D, subject to certain conditions.

They must interact with us in research; they must take our students as trainees in summer; they must send people to do Ph.D here; they must send their staff as adjunct faculty, and so on. I have discussed with CEOs and come up with an MoU that says if you don’t make so many points, you will be thrown out of there. They cannot occupy the space as real estate.

I persuaded the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) to give me sanction for a Section 25 (Companies Act) company — it is called the IIT Madras Research Park Ltd. The company Board will have three secretaries from the Tamil Nadu government, alumni who are successful industrialists here and abroad and faculty from here. This Board will advise me on the project.

It will be a non-profit company that will create the infrastructure and the research ambience.

It is a forum for meeting of unlike minds. Here you have an industrial researcher who knows the market place, a Prof who knows the subject well and the background and the student who doesn’t know what is impossible. So this combination is unbeatable. That’s what has done wonders in Silicon Valley and other places.

The mixing of unlike minds creates ideas. When I say unlike, it can be so in several ways. It can be unlike in terms of discipline, cultural background….in fact, I’m trying to persuade MHRD to permit me to take 25 per cent of post-graduate students from abroad. That’s the mix that the U.S. has achieved.

Will that also help you financially?

I’m not worried about that. It is not so much money as ideas. Ultimately you are thriving on innovation and competitiveness. Innovation comes from ideas which come from mixing of unlike minds. So the ideas that come and the economic boost that you get will far outweigh any money you can get from them by way of fees. I think that once a foreign student is admitted he should not be charged a differential fee. There are out-of-State fees but when you get a really good graduate student such fees has to be waived. That’s what the U.S. does and it has stood to gain.

I keep quoting Louis Pasteur who said in a different context that discovery is the result of chance meeting a prepared mind; I have been preparing minds and chance is meeting them in the US. So if you look at a large number of discoveries or inventions that have made money, there is an Indian name in it but it is in California or in New York. It is about time that we created the opportunities here.

You were talking of opening up post-graduate courses to foreign students. What about foreign faculty? Will that solve your problem of shortage of quality faculty?

Yes, I have also told MHRD that I need faculty from abroad. Look at the US. In the 1930s and 1940s, the US was no place for science. The Second World War gave them an opportunity and they welcomed them with open arms…. Even today, the US does not ask your citizenship. If you are good in the subject, you will be taken into MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

You are asking me to compete with MIT which has 150 times my funding per faculty. Where is the level playing ground? For instance, just two decades ago during perestroika in Russia, some of their outstanding scientists were available for peanuts. We did not take advantage of that….the US did. Now East Europeans of similar quality are available but there is no way for me to exploit that.

But won’t this create a problem because you cannot pay them differently compared to the Indian faculty?

No, I will give them the same salary.

Why will they be attracted to come here then at such low salaries?

They will come because Eastern Europe is not as stable as India. Secondly, India is growing fast. How long will my salary stay this way? There will be a Sixth Pay Commission, there will be an increase. Besides, most faculty do not have lavish lifestyles. For such simple lifestyles, this will be good enough. I’m asking for some perks though. I have been asking for Rs 50,000 per year for books. For instance, my personal library was excellent till 1984. I was very proud of that but I’m not proud of this now (points to the sparsely filled bookshelf behind him). I have had Rs 4,000 per year as book money. What can I buy for that? Besides, I have other priorities such as my children’s education and so on. I don’t have a book collection that I can be proud of. That’s one of the few things that a faculty member would like to have and its something he’s entitled to because the more enriched his mind is, the better the students are.

Secondly, taking the concept of “meeting of unlike minds further”, I should be able to send my faculty every year for international conferences. It makes a big difference to the faculty member.

Doesn’t it happen now?

It happens once in three years. And we have conditions… you have to show a certain level of performance before I can send you. Innovation is of two kinds. What I have been talking of till now is the “idea factory” approach where you have this meeting of unlike minds and you get ideas. There is another approach in university called the “magic garden” approach where you hire people of outstanding intellect and leave them alone. You create conditions and wait for it to bloom. It may not bloom at all and it’s a chance that you have to take. But when it blooms it will be wonderful. That’s how the great discoveries have often happened. You should allow for both approaches. You should create the conditions. If this fellow is thinking of a very bright idea and he wants to talk to somebody, he knows that in that area there is an international conference where the person he wants to talk to will come. He does not want to go meet that man in his office. But if he meets him in the conference, he will be able to discuss the idea and one will spark off the other. So that opportunity is what I need. I shouldn’t say that unless you produce this flower, I won’t send you. I have to take a chance.

Isn’t it amazing that with such limitations on faculty, you have been able to turn out such high quality graduates?

I think we have done a good job but it all depends on how you look at it. First of all, we have a committed faculty and to a large extent committed staff as well. They are not often praised. Again, take our processes. In IIT-Madras we have ISO 9001-2000 for 12 support processes which is not easy. Remember, they are not doing it for the excitement of research because it is not that.

The present intake of students across all IITs is less than 2 per cent of those who write the entrance examination. There could be students who are at the threshold level who are as bright as the first 2 per cent but fail to secure admission. How do you address this issue?

That is the origin of my statement that we need 25 IITs in the country. Earlier, we had made an assessment that successively in the joint entrance examination — 2,00,000 students were writing it then, now it is 2,50,000 — about 12,000 were very good and then there was a drop.

That means we should have 12,000 seats in IITs; there will be no heartburns. When I’m cutting off, I’ll be slicing off clearly a superior crowd. But out of that 12,000 to pick out 4,000 causes a lot of heartburn because it could be any 4,000. We don’t have a very good way of discriminating among this 12,000 and we take the first 4,000 because that is all the seats we have.

I pointed this out a long time ago and the Minister (HRD) also caught up with it. That’s why the NITs (National Institute of Technology) were created; the idea was to convert NITs into IITs. But you can’t do it overnight and the Minister also realised that.

We suggested that you fund these NITs well and when they reach a level of performance, that is about one-third of an existing IIT, boost them a little more by injecting funds and try and make them into IIT. But they have to get to that minimal level before they can be converted.

Obviously, this problem is not going to be solved overnight….

Certainly not. We have been talking about it for a long time, we have neglected faculty development for a long time. Now we are doing some things. We have always been good only in crisis management. We create a crisis and then manage it. Now we have a crisis and hopefully we will manage it.

Talking of the admission process itself, are you happy with the present system? There is a feeling that the process encourages rote learning.

That is not correct. First of all, rote learning is blamed more than it should be; it is nevertheless an important component of education. As per our present idea of learning and creativity, there are four steps. Two belong to the left brain which is logical, good at words, good at step-by-step reasoning and two belong to the right brain which is musical, imaginative but illiterate. Learning consists of four steps the first of which is data gathering, which is what rote learning gives you. You simply put all the data and you will never use up your brain. Second step is incubation when you try to figure out how to make sense of all the things that you have seen. Third step is enlightenment when you theorise and say “ah, this theory will explain all that I have seen”. The last step is experimental verification where you verify your theory. Good scientific theory must always come with a proposal for an experiment which may actually prove the theory wrong. Anyway, no theory is proved right; theories are right till they are proved wrong. That’s how science works.

Now it is synergy between left and right sides of the brain that leads to creativity. Rote learning is therefore one step in learning and creativity and it is not wrong. It is absurd to say that because of rote learning you are not able to do other things. That is bunkum. You brain has so much capacity that you can do all the rest. If you don’t do the other three steps and stop with rote learning, then that is bad. By itself, rote learning is not bad. In fact, there is another religious concept that a lot of good things that your grandmother teaches you is by rote learning when you are very small. It is good because once you start thinking logically, you may not accept some of these ideas which are actually useful in the long run. If you put them in through your intuition, logic cannot remove them. So they stay in your brain till you realise it at a mature age and exclaim ‘oh, that’s why my grandmother said this, how clever” and so on. Remember, the data came into your brain because of rote learning. So by itself rote learning is not wrong. We have a tendency to say that everything we did was wrong and therefore it has to be changed. That is absurd. There is a middle path that makes sense all the time.

The classical story of left versus right brain is that of Ramanujan and Hardy. Ramanujan went to England where Hardy posed a very difficult problem to him. Ramanujan was all right-brained while Hardy was all left-brained. Ramanujan just wrote down the answer. After 1 ½ years of struggle, Hardy proved that it was right saying it was too beautiful to be wrong. He then asked Ramanujan how he got the solution to which Ramanujan replied “the Goddess of Namakkal told me”. That was our tradition. We did not call ourselves intuitive geniuses but we said that if we have faith in God, we will get ‘revelations’. It is a cultural trait which we have now lost.

So you think that the admission process is fine….

Let me tell you about that. There is no examination that can choose 1 per cent of its applicants. It is impossible to design. You have 2,50,000 applicants and you choose 4,000. That’s too tall a demand. Second, IITs are good but they have become extraordinarily good in comparison because other institutions have deteriorated. Therefore, the demand for IIT has become artificially high.

In such a situation, there are going to be commercial ventures such the entrance examination coaching industry which, I am told, is Rs 1,500-crore in size. They are going to find ways to crack the exam; they may not do it through rote learning but they do it by what I call “pattern recognition”.. if it is this, then the answer is this. Unfortunately for us, they have become very well in “pattern recognition”.

I’m not saying that the process is perfect but it would be unfair to dismiss it. What I’m saying is that we should factor in the Board examination performance much more. Then the coaching will shift to the Board exams. Right now we ask for 60 per cent; my recommendation would be that you take the top students in all the Boards and give them the JEE. If I have to examine only 12,000 people, then I can do a much better job of it. Coaching industry won’t come in and I’ll get people with raw intelligence.

What are the challenges awaiting you as you enter your second term now?

There are several. I’m examining distance education because of the shortage of teachers. We have a huge project called National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL); we have completed Phase I. We have created 240 courses, 120 by video and 120 by Web. In fact, we proposed it in 1999; finally MHRD gave us the funding in 2003. It was a three-year project but took longer and we finished it on June 30 this year. The Web courses are available free of charge. We have gone about it systematically by taking the syllabus of Anna University (Chennai), Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University and Visvesvaraya University which account for 70 per cent of the students, plus other AICTE common syllabus. We have taken a relook at the syllabus, recast it, done the lectures (sequentially 40 lectures per course) in a modular form.

A total of 320 faculty members from eight institutions have been involved. We have covered five engineering disciplines — computer science, electrical and electronics, communication, civil and mechanical — and are now getting into the second phase. We have had more than half a million hits from 1,60,000 registered users. Most of the users are in India but there is a substantial percentage from the US as well.

What kind of degree would these students get?

No, right now it is not towards a degree. It is meant to increase the reach and improve the quality of engineering education. We are giving it free and so institutions cannot use it to give a degree. There is a shortage of faculty everywhere and there is a crying need for good courses. So at least there is an authentic course that goes lecture by lecture, it is in modular form and different universities can choose different modules to make up their syllabus. It has been a huge effort.

There will be another 500 courses in the second part, at the end of which I would like to float a virtual university or a virtual IIT. With 10 per cent additional work in the seven IITs and, probably, the Indian Institute of Science, we will be able to cater to almost twice the number that all IITs now cater to.

Will it be a revenue model for you?

It won’t. The idea is I don’t want to take up the administration part of this. I want to do the content creation and keep the exit control. Some industries have to pitch in with the finance and many are willing. I have also asked the government that finally such an entity should be created by an act of Parliament so that there will be no interference from anybody… like the IITs. I’m not looking at it as a revenue generator; the ultimate revenue is the brains that you mould. In education I think the minute you look at monetary returns it is absurd. You should look upon the money spent as an investment for the future.

One of the things lacking in India is medicine in the same campus as engineering. You know, medicine now is 80 per cent engineering. The final diagnosis is that of the doctor but he is assisted by so much engineering that you need inter-disciplinary programmes in these. We have about 15 adjunct faculty who are doctors but they are involved in research and sometimes teach a few courses. We need much more of this, probably a joint programme. We are running a programme on medical biotechnology with Frontier Lifeline. We are now working with Chitra Tirunal Institute and CMC Vellore to develop a full-fledged programme and produce engineers for the medical field.

There are also challenges from other emerging opportunities. I need to introduce nuclear engineering here. Though there is one in IIT-Kanpur, you need it in other places as well. The numbers now are sub-critical. We’ve been also looking at Petroleum Engineering; we are now looking to collaborate with BHEL and NTPC for doing work on energy particularly clean coal technologies and fluid bed combustion technology. And then there is nanotechnology which everyone is talking about.

What is your opinion on reservation for faculty and students?

There is no faculty reservation now. It exists only at the lecturer level and there is no reservation at the higher levels. At IITs we start at the Asst. Professor level and there is no faculty reservation there yet. I don’t think faculty reservation is a good idea. But I believe equal opportunity for all is important at the education level. So for students, reservation is a good, healthy idea. But, personally, and this is my personal opinion, I have been recommending that such reservation should be on exactly what Mandal said — socio-educational basis, that is depending on the social background and the educational background of the family, you give reservations.

By naming communities I’m a little worried because social integration has already occurred in the cities and this creates an awareness of communities where there was none. Many of our students don’t know what is other backward castes (OBC) and so on. Now they will know and it worries me. But on the other hand a proactive interference is required to ensure that people who are otherwise not benefited are benefited. That’s important. I don’t think student reservation per se is going to kill quality because that can be maintained. But it should be on some merit basis. But not faculty reservation because faculty are the ones who enthuse students. We have SC/ST and OBC faculty who come in on their own and are as good as anybody else. That’s the way it should be.

What is this that people say that reserved seats are not fully filled up?

ST seats are not filled but SC seats are fully filled. We do not have sufficient ST applicants. We have a merit cut-off for all of them but we do not enough ST applicants.

This is despite your 1-year preparatory course?

Yes. This year, for example, we have a large number of ST students coming into the course. Hopefully they will make up the numbers. But ST is difficult everywhere and it is true not just here.