What NEET could learn from IITs and IIMs

The NEET paper leak has produced the usual Indian cycle of outrage, denial, committee formation, televised indignation, and eventual philosophical resignation. One more scandal joins the great national archive of things that “should not have happened,” but somehow did, under the benevolent supervision of authorities who assure us that everything remains under control, except perhaps the system itself.

The tragedy lies not merely in corruption, but in the collapse of something that ought to remain sacrosanct. A medical entrance examination is not a municipal tender for pothole repairs or a procurement contract for office furniture. It determines who enters a profession entrusted with human life. If such examinations lose credibility, the damage extends far beyond a single batch of students. It corrodes trust in merit itself.

At some point, one is tempted to ask a rather old-fashioned question: must everything in India eventually become negotiable? Surely there are certain domains where a civilisation ought to summon the collective will to build exceptionally robust systems. Currency printing. National entrance examinations. Civil services recruitment. Higher judicial institutions. Advanced scientific establishments. One cannot run these on the cheerful assumption that “some leakage is inevitable.” A leaking tap is one thing. A leaking examination system is another.

Yet the curious thing is this: India already possesses examples of institutions that have remained remarkably resistant to corruption in admissions for decades. The IIMs and IITs stand out prominently. Their systems are not perfect because Indians suddenly become Scandinavian upon entering campus gates. The same politicians, ambitious parents, influence peddlers, and occasional scoundrels exist there too. The difference lies elsewhere. The difference lies in institutional design.

For decades, admission into the IIMs, a system I know reasonably well, through the CAT examination acquired a reputation bordering on the incorruptible. One did not hear stories of industrialists purchasing seats for wayward heirs, or ministers arranging admissions through discreet phone calls from Delhi drawing rooms decorated with heavy curtains and heavier egos. This was not because attempts were absent. India is never short of attempts. There were always phone calls, always “requests,” always people who knew someone who knew someone.

The fascinating part was that the system itself rendered many such interventions useless.

Consider the contrast with a typical Indian bureaucracy or public sector bank. In many organisations, the chairman or managing director possesses such overwhelming informal authority that even a mild suggestion acquires the force of scripture. A credit committee may officially deliberate and analyse a loan proposal. In practice, however, a raised eyebrow from the top often performs the entire appraisal process. Bad loans are born precisely in these delicate moments of institutional obedience.

The IIMs, IITs, and perhaps a handful of others evolved differently.

Even assuming, purely hypothetically, that an IIM director were weak kneed in the face of political pressure, there was very little the director could actually do. The admissions process deliberately fragmented authority. No single individual controlled enough of the system to manipulate it meaningfully. The written examination, evaluation, cut offs, interviews, waiting lists, and final offers all involved multiple actors operating through layered checks and balances.

This diffusion of authority matters enormously. Corruption thrives where discretion concentrates. The CAT process historically resembled less an examination exercise and more a carefully managed intelligence operation. Faculty members from different IIMs participated in question preparation. Committees changed regularly. Subcommittees handled different segments. Those preparing questions were effectively secluded during the process. Telephones disappeared. Movement was restricted. Drafts were surrendered before departure. Questions prepared by one member could be modified by another without the original contributor knowing the final version.

Throughout the process, any one member was privy only to a handful of questions and no one, absolutely no one, was privy to the full question paper. Contrast this with today’s reports quoting the CBI saying that a biology teacher in Pune allegedly had complete access to entire sections of the NEET paper.

Curiously enough, the lone episode involving allegations of a CAT leak arose only after the Government took over printing the paper from the IIMs in 2003. Following the episode, the IIMs tightened printing security and eventually shifted to a computer based testing format in 2009, largely eliminating the possibility of future leaks.

In effect, the system assumed from the outset that human beings are imperfect creatures susceptible to temptation, pressure, vanity, greed, or relatives from Kanpur calling at inconvenient hours. Good institutional design does not rely on moral heroism. It relies on reducing opportunities for manipulation.

This distinction is vital. India often approaches corruption as though it were primarily a moral problem requiring better sermons, stricter warnings, or inspirational speeches involving ancient civilisation. In reality, corruption frequently emerges from poorly designed systems that place excessive discretionary power in too few hands with too little transparency.

The IITs and IIMs demonstrated something rather unfashionable in modern governance: process matters. Even the interview systems reflected this philosophy. Interview panels typically consisted of multiple members from different backgrounds. Candidates did not know which panel they would face, and panels did not know which candidates they would receive. The influence of any one interviewer remained deliberately limited. Bias could not be eliminated entirely, but it could be diluted into statistical insignificance.

That is how robust systems work. They do not assume saints. They assume vulnerabilities.

Another feature deserves attention. Institutions like the IIMs cultivated relatively low power distance cultures (recall the banks, with high power-distance cultures). Faculty members were not easily intimidated by directors, bureaucrats, or external grandees. A director making improper suggestions risked ridicule and reputational embarrassment. This matters more than many realise. In hierarchical systems, corruption often travels downward through hints rather than orders. The ability to resist subtle pressure constitutes an institutional asset. It is a pity that today, some of these traditions are being diluted. One suspects this is precisely where many public systems fail.

The NEET fiasco did not arise merely because some individuals were dishonest. India possesses dishonest individuals in quantities sufficient to populate several medium sized republics. The real failure lies in constructing systems where a small breach can compromise an entire national examination.

A properly designed examination process should resemble a submarine compartment system. One leak should not sink the vessel.

The broader lesson from institutions like the IITs and IIMs is therefore both encouraging and depressing. Encouraging because India clearly possesses the intellectual and administrative capacity to design remarkably corruption resistant systems when it chooses to. Depressing because such seriousness remains selectively distributed.

The problem, ultimately, is less technological than political and institutional. We already know how to build resilient systems. We simply do not apply the same rigour uniformly across public life.

And perhaps that is because truly corruption resistant systems create an unfortunate side effect: they inconvenience the powerful. They reduce discretionary favours. They limit influence. They make phone calls ineffective. In short, they interfere with one of India’s oldest informal institutions, namely the belief that rules exist primarily for those lacking connections.

The IITs and IIMs quietly proved otherwise. The real question after NEET is whether the country possesses the will to extend that logic beyond a few islands of excellence.

END OF ARTICLE