Introduction:
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) is a contentious business school founded in 1973. In the 2000s, IIPM was one of India’s most popular business schools, with branches in major cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Kolkata. With promises of delivering world-class management education and promising rich employment prospects, the institution drew a considerable number of students.
However, in the late 2000s, IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri came under severe scrutiny and criticism owing to several scandals including educational quality, false ads, and unmet promises. This case study essay delves into the history of IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri, as well as the issues that the school experienced and the fallout from those scandals.
Background:
Arindam Chaudhuri was born in Kolkata in 1971 and went to St. Xavier’s College and the University of Delhi for his studies. He then earned a degree from the Indian Institute of business, Ahmedabad, one of India’s most famous business institutions. After working in the corporate sector for a few years, Chaudhuri decided to establish his own business school, which he dubbed IIPM.
The school initially concentrated on planning and entrepreneurial courses, but eventually expanded its offerings to include management courses such as MBA, BBA, and PGDM. Due to its innovative marketing techniques, which included full-page advertising in major newspapers, billboards, and TV commercials showcasing Chaudhuri’s face and strong claims about the school’s superiority over others, IIPM soon acquired popularity.
Controversies:
Due to many problems, IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri came under severe scrutiny and criticism in the late 2000s. The first big dispute emerged in 2005, when India’s regulating agency for higher education, the University Grants Commission (UGC), stated that IIPM was not authorised to offer degrees. The IIPM had claimed that their courses were recognised by the UGC, which was shown to be untrue. Students who had registered in IIPM’s courses were outraged when they realised their degrees would not be recognised by other universities or employers.
In 2008, a major business journal, The Caravan, released an article that uncovered various contradictions in IIPM’s statements regarding its professors, facilities, and placements. According to the article, several of the faculty members mentioned on the IIPM website do not really teach at the school, and the institution falsified its placement numbers to lure students. The investigation also showed that IIPM has sent legal notifications to bloggers and journalists who criticised the school, raising questions about the institution’s commitment to free speech and openness.
The Caravan piece sparked a series of legal disputes between IIPM and the magazine, with IIPM suing the magazine and its journalists for defamation. This exacerbated the debate even further, with many individuals accusing IIPM of attempting to limit free speech and intimidate dissenters.
Aftermath:
The scandals surrounding IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri impacted the school’s image and functioning significantly. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), another higher education regulatory authority, ordered IIPM to close its campuses and stop delivering courses in 2015. The AICTE identified various grounds for the school’s closure, including a lack of recognition, fabrication of facts, and irregularities in its operation.The AICTE’s judgement was contested in court by IIPM, but the court affirmed the decision, finding that IIPM had been functioning unlawfully and had deceived students with false promises. As a result, IIPM was obliged to close its campuses and discontinue academic offerings.
Arindam Chaudhuri’s personal reputation suffered as a result of the disputes. He received criticism from a variety of sources for his participation in the issues as well as his managerial style, which was perceived as autocratic and egoistic. Many individuals accused Chaudhuri of utilising IIPM to pursue his own interests rather than giving students with a proper education.
Chaudhuri attempted to defend himself and IIPM by writing papers and books that attempted to explain and justify the school’s conduct. However, these efforts were mainly futile since the issues had irreparably undermined the school’s credibility.
Conclusion:
The story of IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri serves as a warning about the consequences of deceptive advertising and unscrupulous business practises. The school’s difficulties underscore the need of openness and responsibility in the education industry, as well as the necessity for regulating agencies to enforce high quality and integrity standards.
The failure of IIPM also calls into question the larger culture of management education in India, as well as the role of business schools in moulding the country’s economy and society. Policymakers, educators, and students must consider these problems and fight to create a more ethical and inclusive education system that prioritises the interests of students and society over the interests of individual institutions and entrepreneurs.
