`Expectations were not realised'

Arun Shourie, Minister for Disinvestment, Information Technology and Communications, speaks on the controversies relating to the Media Lab Asia project. Excerpts from the interview he gave R. Ramachandran:

Do you think the Media Lab Asia project was ill-conceived, to begin with?

I would not like to comment on what was decided in the past. The point is that the expectations on which it was based were not quite being realised for instance, contributions by non-governmental sources. Secondly, the contributions by the MIT were not in evidence in the testimony of the research workers of our IITs. Thirdly, the MIT had not been put to any specific deliverables. And yet, enormous amounts of money were pledged to it. The IIT Professors said that foreign collaborations can help, but sometimes the researchers that they wish to collaborate with may be in some other institution. Therefore if it is a relationship it should not be exclusive, it should be project-specific. And the other party should be put to very specific deliverables. Also, very often the collaboration or contact required is between institutions within India the IITs, the Indian Institute of Science, BARC [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] or some other institution for which we do not have the funds or we do not have that culture. For example, some of them are doing good work but it does not get known in the world because we do not have the funds to project our work in international conferences. So they said why don't you assign a part of the funds for this rather than giving it to just one foreign institution. A remoulded project around these ideas has been put to the Cabinet. Let us see what the Cabinet decides.

If these were the concerns of the participating IITs, were they not raised when the memoranda of understanding (MoUs) were signed with the IITs or at the level of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)?

What I understand from the three meetings that I held with the IITs is that this was the first time they had been asked for their views. One or two of them were represented on the board of directors too. At least from the testimony of the persons who were directing the research, it seems that they had not been asked for their inputs earlier.

How was it like that? What was the role of the TAG and how did it function?

I did not examine that. The question is not of exhuming the past but of seeing what should be done for the future.

What triggered your doubts about the programme?

There were repeated queries from the Ministry on whether I had cleared a particular file. When I looked at the file it said that I should immediately sanction $5 million to MIT for using the word Media Lab Asia. I wrote a note on the file asking why I should pay $5 million for a name. Suppose I give Rs.25 crores more to the IITs, can't they do a better job on their own? Then a lot of notes were put up, but I said I will not give in to this just for a name. Then, when we looked at the company documents, it emerged that Media Lab Asia was the name of a company registered in India and so it was not a proprietary asset of the MIT. Our legal adviser confirmed this. Therefore, I said I will not approve anything until I have discussions with the persons who are directing the research in India. That is how the meeting with the IIT Professors started. They were very explicit about what they felt.

As per the Agreement between the government and the MIT, there is mention of a payment of only $1.7 million to the MIT.

That was the payment for the first phase of one year, which was some sort of trial period. A sum of $5 million would have been for continuing to use this name. An alternative proposal, to give $1 million for 10 years, was put up.

But that would have arisen only if the project was cleared for a further period of nine years. But that had not happened. So how was it being raised before that?

See, that was the point. All these things became a problem...

As per the Agreement, the decision to continue or discontinue this collaboration should have been taken three months prior to the conclusion of the first exploratory year...

What happened was that the project got extended twice October to December and December to March. And by February, I had started the review process. Actually, an evaluation committee had been set up, which had submitted its report in December. They found the project to be quite good and recommended its continuation with marginal changes. I did not quite get the force of their argument. I read the report but was not convinced...

But a proposal to extend it for another nine years had not been put before the Cabinet for sanction.

No.

Why did the evaluation committee report recommend its extension despite the reservations of the IIT researchers?

Well, I don't know. The report has recorded that the Committee met about a hundred persons. I don't know how it did not meet the critical people. They gave a report stating that in their view the project should be continued. But after discussions, we came to the conclusion that we should not, and that's it.

You had also raised the issue of the disproportionate salary structure in the set-up. This is something that should have been part of the original proposal which the Cabinet had cleared.

I don't think so. It was set up as a company outside the governmental structure.

But the funding of Rs.65 crores was coming from the government.

Right. Partly, the expectation was that by being outside the governmental structure it would be a more attractive proposition for private endowers, and secondly, it would have a non-governmental culture, which would facilitate research. But because private contributions were not visible, it was being funded entirely by the government. Being non-governmental in salary scales and so on cannot be justified.

Would you say that a proper system of monitoring was not in place?

Well, one year is too short a time to arrive at such harsh judgments...

What I meant was that there was a TAG, the Department Secretary was on the board, a Joint Secretary was attached to the programme, a financial adviser was part of the structure...

I don't know. I literally tell you that my principle in working is not to exhume the past but to see what should be done for the future in this regard as well as in other matters.

But aren't there lessons to draw from this?

Yes, there are, and all these lessons have been incorporated in the new structure that we have proposed without going into what x or y was doing in the past.

Do you have corporate sponsorship in mind for the new structure, given that nothing has been forthcoming until now?

I think it will be forthcoming if the programme has greater credibility. Suppose we have five projects in hand, the programme will acquire credibility. As such, we have not asked anybody for anything.