This article is written for the alumni of SP Jain institute of Management, the group I am a part of.
The title mimics the brilliant play by Oscar Wilde and I am amused at the strange and unforgiving recurring patterns of history. In the year 2005 there were a spate of mails that had polarised the alumni group about the decision to globalize SP Jain institute (apart from an appointment of a director who was anyway out within a year) with several members commending and others including myself condemning the same. It was not globalisation that was on contest, however though that was the ostensible reason which made some of us look like Luddites opposing the inexorable march of global capitalism (forget the occupy protesters). It was the curious case of the Jains trying to buy back what they considered as truly Jain i.e the brand name. Let me clarify. That global brand dream has soured. The decision to go global at SP Jain was being questioned not because globalisation was bad but because there seemed too much at stake in diluting the brand, intersecting dissimilar governance systems between a profit and a non profit organisation, a larger than needed proportion of the Jain family members on the governing council and likelihood of uneven standards especially in admission despite the inadequate strength of core faculty being spread like peanut butter or rather salt from Dharangadhra Chemical Works of the Jain business lines.
However the move was heralded with much pomp and posturing about the prospect of globalisation, hailing an institution for practicing what it preached; and all criticism was viewed as the obscurantism of conservative brahminical notions of education and its values. The few of us who were really troubled even formed a group of concerned alumni to hear out the faculty especially the dean who held forth laboriously in monologue off an interminable document, despite his age and health condition preempting any discussion by the group. While it was presented as the triumph of the dean's persuasive powers, few wished to be critical of a place wanting to be heedless of constituencies other than the overarching vision of one man however flawed. It is indeed a thin line that divides being decisive and being obdurate.
That peculiar species of hubris was found wanting after five years and wishes that peoples memories remain shorter somehow. After 5 years of solemn experimentation of being global and as the business policy expert would have preached "centralised operations with decentralised control", the SP Jain Centre of Management at Dubai and Singapore and other such knowledge hubs on the silk routes of modern commerce have achieved their goals and prospered much wider than the parent who seems to have been midwife and mother at her birth. This was not a global venture but to use Michael Porters terms a Multi-Domestic operation. Not that they had ambitious and grand concerns of academic excellence but as a profit venture it seemed to be a runaway success making far more in terms of turnover and profitability than its poorer parent (or should I say Head Quarters in the true business speak) on Dadabhai Road could ever imagine. (Hopefully the royalties if any were defined on a variable basis of turnover and not fixed amounts). Remember that academic quality, of students and inputs was never even in the consideration set of concerns.
The grand irony after this was that last week the alumni batch probably 1996 was told by none other than the august dean that the Mumbai HQ had nothing to do with Dubai and Singapore operations. This despite the fact that on the websites they are still hyperlinked in blissful union and alumni web communities like this remain indulgent of both. It isn't that this estrangement has been sudden and unanticipated it has been now more than a year or two that it has been taboo to bring up in discussions; earlier than a seven year itch for a young institution in her late twenties. The Bhavans might still believe that unions like that in the Ramayan were as Janaka said about Sita being "sahadharmacharini" to Rama. I doubt that simply disavowing the prodigals is likely to be easy or such divorces less messy. Indeed one can always claim to be fallible and it is easy virtue to be contrite and believe that one was taken advantage of or even that such errors reflect a rare dynamism that dominates prudence. Yet it seems petulant to blame some faculty who might yet teach the other shore as it is understandable that they committed earlier on possibly lesser motivations when this was once touted as the tipping point.The real question would be what is the extent of the damage done. If the Andheri HQ is robust and thriving in health and academic excellence, this might be a blip on the radar of the hugely forgiving general populace. If not we have several little SP Jains running round the block each claiming to be more Jain than the other. So the globalisation agenda probably hasn't found the right partnership and now is the time to go for the gold, not lesser gods like Schulik or Reutlingen or any strange University but some Boston Brahmins if possible. After all after thirty years of existence one is no longer the gauche teenager to misread the promoters and their patent motivations and plead errors of judgement. I guess after the Arab spring the Korean thaw might yet skirt the "Great Successor". And amidst the feigned grief of the lamenters what you still cant see is the successor. Surely you must be joking professor.
Many have drawn from the waters of SP Jain and each of us to the size of our own capacity and remain grateful for the same. The question really is whether the succeeding batches would have equal if not greater opportunities and that we draw satisfaction form a place we hold dear. That is the kernel in the practice of intergenerational equity.
(I confess that the tale from the other shore i.e. SP Jain Centre guys will be different and has not been accounted for)
The title mimics the brilliant play by Oscar Wilde and I am amused at the strange and unforgiving recurring patterns of history. In the year 2005 there were a spate of mails that had polarised the alumni group about the decision to globalize SP Jain institute (apart from an appointment of a director who was anyway out within a year) with several members commending and others including myself condemning the same. It was not globalisation that was on contest, however though that was the ostensible reason which made some of us look like Luddites opposing the inexorable march of global capitalism (forget the occupy protesters). It was the curious case of the Jains trying to buy back what they considered as truly Jain i.e the brand name. Let me clarify. That global brand dream has soured. The decision to go global at SP Jain was being questioned not because globalisation was bad but because there seemed too much at stake in diluting the brand, intersecting dissimilar governance systems between a profit and a non profit organisation, a larger than needed proportion of the Jain family members on the governing council and likelihood of uneven standards especially in admission despite the inadequate strength of core faculty being spread like peanut butter or rather salt from Dharangadhra Chemical Works of the Jain business lines.
However the move was heralded with much pomp and posturing about the prospect of globalisation, hailing an institution for practicing what it preached; and all criticism was viewed as the obscurantism of conservative brahminical notions of education and its values. The few of us who were really troubled even formed a group of concerned alumni to hear out the faculty especially the dean who held forth laboriously in monologue off an interminable document, despite his age and health condition preempting any discussion by the group. While it was presented as the triumph of the dean's persuasive powers, few wished to be critical of a place wanting to be heedless of constituencies other than the overarching vision of one man however flawed. It is indeed a thin line that divides being decisive and being obdurate.
That peculiar species of hubris was found wanting after five years and wishes that peoples memories remain shorter somehow. After 5 years of solemn experimentation of being global and as the business policy expert would have preached "centralised operations with decentralised control", the SP Jain Centre of Management at Dubai and Singapore and other such knowledge hubs on the silk routes of modern commerce have achieved their goals and prospered much wider than the parent who seems to have been midwife and mother at her birth. This was not a global venture but to use Michael Porters terms a Multi-Domestic operation. Not that they had ambitious and grand concerns of academic excellence but as a profit venture it seemed to be a runaway success making far more in terms of turnover and profitability than its poorer parent (or should I say Head Quarters in the true business speak) on Dadabhai Road could ever imagine. (Hopefully the royalties if any were defined on a variable basis of turnover and not fixed amounts). Remember that academic quality, of students and inputs was never even in the consideration set of concerns.
The grand irony after this was that last week the alumni batch probably 1996 was told by none other than the august dean that the Mumbai HQ had nothing to do with Dubai and Singapore operations. This despite the fact that on the websites they are still hyperlinked in blissful union and alumni web communities like this remain indulgent of both. It isn't that this estrangement has been sudden and unanticipated it has been now more than a year or two that it has been taboo to bring up in discussions; earlier than a seven year itch for a young institution in her late twenties. The Bhavans might still believe that unions like that in the Ramayan were as Janaka said about Sita being "sahadharmacharini" to Rama. I doubt that simply disavowing the prodigals is likely to be easy or such divorces less messy. Indeed one can always claim to be fallible and it is easy virtue to be contrite and believe that one was taken advantage of or even that such errors reflect a rare dynamism that dominates prudence. Yet it seems petulant to blame some faculty who might yet teach the other shore as it is understandable that they committed earlier on possibly lesser motivations when this was once touted as the tipping point.The real question would be what is the extent of the damage done. If the Andheri HQ is robust and thriving in health and academic excellence, this might be a blip on the radar of the hugely forgiving general populace. If not we have several little SP Jains running round the block each claiming to be more Jain than the other. So the globalisation agenda probably hasn't found the right partnership and now is the time to go for the gold, not lesser gods like Schulik or Reutlingen or any strange University but some Boston Brahmins if possible. After all after thirty years of existence one is no longer the gauche teenager to misread the promoters and their patent motivations and plead errors of judgement. I guess after the Arab spring the Korean thaw might yet skirt the "Great Successor". And amidst the feigned grief of the lamenters what you still cant see is the successor. Surely you must be joking professor.
Many have drawn from the waters of SP Jain and each of us to the size of our own capacity and remain grateful for the same. The question really is whether the succeeding batches would have equal if not greater opportunities and that we draw satisfaction form a place we hold dear. That is the kernel in the practice of intergenerational equity.
(I confess that the tale from the other shore i.e. SP Jain Centre guys will be different and has not been accounted for)
No comments:
Post a Comment