Dear Dr. Rai and Aniljee,
Thanks for pointing out the USOF report and also providing a link to the report that has been put up on a publicly available source by the project sponsor USOF ~ clearly showing that it had been submitted by Prof. Rekha Jain to USOF as a project end report as this is the only report that has been uploaded by USOF (and there isn't any version of the report in USOF website and/or any other public domain to believe otherwise).
Yes, it is unfortunate (and indeed sloppy) to see such a reference about auspices bias in the report like the one that has been provided by Prof. Rekha Jain. The marketing research text is full of such descriptions, she should have at least referred to one of them, albeit she is not a trained management researcher and doesn't even have an MBA/PGDM, so personally, I am not surprised at the sloppy referencing. I am refraining from commenting on the quality of the report and the analysis, which is majorly a descriptive analysis (these days college students can also do this), evident to any reader of this report. Given the substantial national interest of USOF, the recommendations should have been based on much more solid footing by a deeper dive into finding the reality!
I am also surprised to see my name as a passing by line in this report ~ it would have been better if my name had not been mentioned at all in the report, as per my wish, given the rampant plagiarism and professional dishonesty, misappropriation and cheating that had happened in this project, which I had pointed out to her very clearly in writing. Albeit, I should have ideally been made a co-author of the report given my involvement in this project for more than 87% of the project, right from the proposal writing to the finalization of the assessment frameworks and the analysis plan. However, I had consciously taken a call to disassociate myself from the project for reasons which I describe later in this email and had not been part of any data collection, analysis of the data collected or the recommendations thereof.
Being an insider for this project, I would like to point out clearly here that the sampling bias as mentioned in the report is not by chance, but by design. There is no evidence the data that this report has analyzed are real and hence, the recommendations that have been put forth in this report appear completely based out of false, fabricated and cheated data. I do not know why it was done in this way, but I am hereby launching a formal complaint to the respective authorities, as this group should deem fit, for a detailed inquiry as to whose vested interest this report caters to such that this critical project of national interest has been skewed to fit in the interests of the concerned parties as recommended in this project report. It's a shame to see such third grade work and falsified reports carrying the logo of a great institute like IIM Ahmedabad. In the same breath, I would also urge a detailed inquiry into the functioning of Idea IIMA Telecom Center of Excellence (IITCoE) about its functioning and fund utilization with an independent audit report as to what extent the funds are utilized solely for the purpose of travel, salary of the RAs of Prof. Jain and other such expenses of Prof. Jain instead of making it a research center in true sense for telecom related research. How many research projects have been done in this center by faculties other than Prof. Jain, how many research project reports are reported other than Prof. Jain are critical to understand.
While the pointer to the report that you have provided has been an eye opener for me, I thought of bringing to the notice of the group members about the insider aspects of what had actually happened during this project, through a detailed description along with requisite evidence (as attached in the zip file with this email in 2 parts...part 1 is attached with this email and part 2 is a followup email containing exhibit 17 only), as I believe that academia is for candor and pragmatism.
I had been part of a research project funded by the Universal Services Obligation Fund (USOF), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & IT, Government of India along with Prof. Rekha Jain. The project was on Improvement in Monitoring of USOF Broadband Scheme And Impact Assessment.
In fact, I wrote the proposal for the project and had sent it to Prof. Rekha Jain for discussing and finalizing the same [see 1_Oct 10_2010_Proposal Writing]. Following that, the proposal was submitted to USOF [see 2_Oct_15_2010_Email by Rekha Jain to USOF].
The project was for a period of nine months starting from January 2011 as per agreement document sent by the respective department [3_Agreement with IIMA Idea]. The project was divided into four phases as follows a.) Phase I: Understanding the Wireline Broadband Scheme b.) Phase 2: Status and Review c.) Phase 3: Data Collection and Analysis and d.) Phase 4: Recommendations. The details of the manpower section of the attached agreement mentions two faculty members from IIMA, indicating myself and Prof. Jain for the aforesaid project.
Initially, I was actively involved in the project right up to a major part of Phase 3 of the project, where in I had done the background study in understanding the wireline broadband scheme (phase I), participated in actively in the status of broadband scheme status and review (phase 2) and had finalized the data collection, methodology and the analysis strategy that led to the data collection and analysis (phase 3) of the project. Hence, you will find that I had been involved in more than 87% this project for more than a year before I decided to withdraw myself from this project. During this one year of my involvement in the project, I had heavily contributed through my original thinking and work in this project and given substantial ideas for achieving the target of the project leading to the desired national impact for such a crucial intervention.
To justify my claim, I can provide a plethora of email communications that happened with Prof. Rekha Jain, Kavita Tatwadi (RA to Rekha Jain) and myself. However, for the purpose of brevity, I will only refer to a handful and the critical communications through this email.
· Post background study, while the RAs of IITCoE had gone for field visit, I was part of the status review [see for example: 4_Aug 2011_accepted meeting for review of the USOF pilot study findings].
· Email communication from Prof. Rekha Jain to USOF administrator highlighting the problems faced in the pilot study keeping me in loop. [see: for example: 5_Aug 26_2011] post discussion.
· On 29 August 2011 Kavita (RA at IITCoE) asked my inputs regarding response to USOF based on their observations [see 6_Aug_29_2011_Kavita to Rajanish]
· Similar emails exist showing my substantial contribution in the questionnaire design, modus of data collection, finalizing the impact assessment framework and report that covers my contributions up to the middle of Phase 3 (references follow). For example, on Dec 19, 2011 I had reviewed the data compilation and analysis methodology [see 13_Dec 19_2011_Methodology finalization email]
However, with passing of time, I found a very peculiar change in approach of Prof. Rekha Jain, which started making me very uncomfortable clearly showing that she had started doing things in the project without my knowledge/consent and was trying to hide what she was doing in some very critical parts of the project.
For example, after the first pilot survey was done by the research associates at Sawa, Chittourgarh [see 5_Aug 26_2011_Pilot Study report] both Prof. Jain and I had gone through the major findings and had clearly highlighted that
"1. USOF assumes that CCAs will do the survey while in field BSNL personnel have to assist…." and
"2. When the BSNL personnel accompanied the surveyors, the respondents were not very forthcoming with the problems faced by them. They weren't complaining (which they did on the next day when the BSNL personnel were not accompanying)".
Similarly the suggestion A(1) in that report of email [5_Aug 26_2011_Pilot Study report] had also strongly mentioned that "the data collection has (to) be carried out by a third party marketing research agency…else we will not be able to ensure authenticity and integrity of the data…".
I had been vehemently raising this issue that if USOF itself does the data collection through its own Controller of Communication Accounts (CCA), then it impacts the very point of doing an impact assessment study and we should not agree to such scrupulous activities, rather should consider moving out of the project, in case independent third party data collection under our direct supervision does not happen.
One thing, of course needs to be admitted that an impact assessment exercise is more like a third party audit. The use of interested parties and direct beneficiaries like CCAs for getting the data collected will not even provide the rarest of the pointers if any data was collected at all, let aside the accuracy of the data.
I had never received any response of this pilot report either from USOF or from Prof. Jain. However, Kavita, had mentioned to me over an email that "Please find below the note we are sending to USOF office. Please let us know if you wish to add something…" [see 6_Aug 29_2011_Kavita 2 rajanish]. Clearly, "they" had taken a decision without my notice as to what will be sent to accommodate the need of getting the surveys conducted by CCAs. Importantly, this letter stated, "Based on your assessment of the situation in Rajasthan is a rare one".
The same email, in verbatim, was sent to USOF by Prof. Rekha Jain on Aug 30, 2011 [see 7_Aug 30_2011_Rekha Jain to USOF] in which, it must be pointed out that she wrote in point 2 that "As per your discussion with me… Kavita will train the CCAs how to deploy the survey". Also, notably in this email, she had also mentioned about the schedule for the second pilot study in Gujarat.
Most interesting part is that, I was never informed about the whereabouts of the second pilot happening, till one day, on Sep 19, 2011 I got an email from Rekha Jain to USOF enclosing the report for the second pilot in Palanpur, Gujarat [see 7A_Sep 19_2011_Rekha to USOF_Second Pilot Report]. As expected, in this pilot report, she was very very positive about the experience in this second pilot study mentioning, "This was good. Hope we can ensure similar profiles of CCAs for the sudy".
Thus all necessary ground work that was needed to be done to bring in bias in the overall study got finally designed and executed. Clearly Prof. Jain did not want me to keep raising this issue of possibilities of getting false data and analyzing such data to cater to the vested interest of some parties.
There were multiple such instances ~ for example:
· Although I had been the major contributor in the questionnaire design for the primary research of the project, on Sep 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM an email arrived from Kavita about changes in the questionnaire that she had incorporated following the instructions of Prof. Rekha Jain alone. This impacted all the questionnaires that we had initially designed [see 8_26 Sep 2011_Kavita_10_12 AM attachment]. Within around 30 minutes of this, exactly at 10:48 AM, Prof. Rekha had sent those changed questionnaire to USOF (as they had to send them to their field offices for data collection) [see 9_26 Sep 2011_10_48 AM as attached], without even asking me once if those changes were acceptable. Later with in 15 minutes of sending this email, she wrote to me at 11:05 AM that she had sent the changed questionnaire while waiting for my inputs and in the interest of time [see 10_26 Sep 2011_Rekha to Rajanish as attached]. Clearly, there was some hurry in changing the questionnaire without my knowledge.
· Post this, there was a long lull on the project front and I had no idea about what all had been happening in the project (as I had raised my issues and concerns right from the point I understood the data collection plan through CCAs where USOF itself was the interested party) till I received an email on Dec 19, 2011 with a report that captured lots of my original contribution in the project and asking for review the same day for submitting [see 11_Dec 19_2011_report from Kavita as attached &15_USOF background writeup]. To this I had replied to Kavita that same day seeking more time as needed, given the volume of the report and that quality should not be compromised [see 12_Dec 19_2011_Response to Kavita]. I got baffled with the hurry that was being shown to hide things detailed in the report and decided to do a proper review. My reply to Kavita stating that I was completely kept in dark about the report submission. There had been a false hurry from the side of Rekha so that some of the major omissions and commissions done by her goes unnoticed in the hurried review of the report. Also on Dec 28, 2011 I got another updated report [see 14_Dec 28 2011_kavita as attached & 16_USOF_background as attached].
After I completed the review of the report sent on Dec 19, 2011, I raised issues about the quality of the report and the way it was getting positioned, incomplete parts in the report which was intentionally kept hidden so that I remain unaware of the same, plagiarism in the interim report which I had reported along with a report from Turnitin, and had also mentioned that if the quality of the report is so bad along with the plagiarism, then I refuse to put my name in the report, as I had always kept an interest in the project keeping in mind the national impact of the report. By this time, I had made substantial contribution to the project (as vivid from the draft report dated Dec 19/Dec 28, 2011) where all the data collection & assessment frameworks, methods to analyze such data etc. had been formulated.
On January 5, 2012, while we met at her office, there was a huge disagreement between Prof. Jain and myself because of the way the data collection had been decided to be done by the CCAs and not by any independent third party agency, thus making the very foundation of this intervention completely flawed. Moreover, she was absolutely clear in her mind and tried to convince me about the results and recommendations that she wanted to put forth in the report. I was shocked and surprised as how can we decide the recommendations even before the data collection has happened and such data has been analyzed. She also told me that if I agree to her, she would help me in resolving all the pending issues that I had been facing in the institute by "talking" to the right people.
I got a clear indication that everything in this project had been pre-decided, the whole project was only an eye-wash and that she only wanted a second person as a defense at later stage, if any problem comes up. I also got a clear indication during that meeting as why I had been kept away while she had agreed to collection of the false data and also the report for the second polit. Undoubtedly, this was a huge academic and professional dishonesty as per my standards and I decided to move out from the project only at this point.
Prof. Jain seemed to be very happy and contented with my decision, and now when I find my name in the report mentioning that I have been involved only in the initial part of the project, clearly points out her intent to plagiarize.
Following this incidence, I gave a formal note to Prof. Rekha Jain on January 9, 2012 mentioning my withdrawal from the project [see 19_Jan 9 2012_Email to Rekha_Withdraw from USOF]. Prof. Jain had replied to me on the next day stating that she would immediately settle my credits for the project [see 20_Jan 9 2012_Email from Rekha]. However, till date (which is about 20 months now), I have not got my dues from IIMA (including payments for this project) including my dues towards PF, Gratuity, Consulting fees, Extra teaching dues etc. Given the clout that these power mongers have with the "right people" in the institute, I am not at all surprised!
My apprehensions got converted into reality when I then reflected back in analyzing why she was in such a hurry to get rid of me from this project and without even requesting me once to come back and complete the project. I thought that may be simply out of professional courtesy ~ given my tremendous contribution to the project, right from writing the project proposal to finalizing the primary research and analysis frameworks, she will respond back. I came to know about a conference on the same topic at Vigyan Bhawan on March 23, 2012 on the same project, in which I was never involved by Prof. Jain or by USOF (although the agreement between USOF and IITCoE was for 2 IIMA faculty members working on the project and that there was no second IIMA faculty who had got involved) and all my inputs, ideas, work and contributions to this project was stolen by Prof. Rekha Jain and was passed on as her own work as is clearly evident from the report uploaded on the USOF website.
Following that, neither I have ever been updated about the status of the project, nor any output from the above said project (report/paper/case/analysis etc.) been sent to me for my information or any notification related to the above said project. While I now see the recommendations in the report submitted by Prof. Jain, it reflects exactly those points that she had expressed on January 5, 2012 at her office leading to my decision of withdrawal from the project. I doubt about the recommendations in the report and how of these recommendations are genuine and are based on the "real" data representing "actual" respondents. In fact, in the report, to cover this up, she has also mentioned about the "unusual findings" in her report and vividly tries to defend her stance in the name of "auspices and interviewer biases" (see page 12 of the report). Had such biases been the actual hindrances, then no research on this earth and frameworks created by professionals and academicians that could hold ground.
After these incidences I decided to resign from the services of my institute given the bad academic environment due to such power brokers that had got created in the institute to the extent of violation of high court orders and providing false evidences in the court of law.
Although I am aware that my paper criticizing UIDAI as miscalculated heroism was not appreciated by some key sponsors of the institute along with some low quality paper tigers with in our institute who work as power brokers ~ giving in to "paid research" to suit the agenda of the vested interests of the sponsors (refer for example to the turnaround story of Indian Railways which later led to the withdrawal of the Railway Chair from the institute the moment the Union Railway minister (now in jail due to fodder scam) was changed, several TRAI consultation responses including 3g auction methodology, power sector reforms etc.). I have high disregard, disrespect and disbelief in such "paid research" and have never given in to such dishonest acts for the sake of economic/social benefits. The funniest part being that some of these unethical power brokers also teach courses on managerial ethics in the institute!
This was the same reason why an independent study sponsored by UNDP on the topic of "IT Enabled Financial Inclusion for India" led to a false and fabricated complaint lodged by Prof. Rekha Jain on the 'final report of the project" on September 1, 2010 (while there was no such report in existence till that date), which was encouraged by the then power brokers of the institute. The final report got published only the following year on January 15, 2011. Although this had been brought forward to the then administration and the rubber stamp committee of Errol D' Souza and Tathagata Bandopadhyay (who I have now learnt have been avatars in their past lives at University of Bombay and University of Calcutta respectively), but had fallen to deaf ears as they were part of that same group of high ended power brokers promoting "paid" research. Incidentally, all the project materials and findings related to the project on financial inclusion (which spoke of a new approach towards addressing the real issue of financial inclusion) got removed from the institute website immediately after I had resigned on April 2, 2012.
It is undoubtedly extremely unfortunate to see instances of such dishonesty and plagiarism being carried out by a group of power brokers in this globally recognized iconic institute that the founders that dreamt to build.
Its also very painful to see how the hard work of a large group of high caliber faculty members and non-teaching staff, who work day in day out in the institute, not caring for a moment for holidays and after office work hours for the betterment of the students and trying to hold the flag of the institute fly high, going down the drain because of a group of such dishonest and criminal minded power brokers in the institute who work only for their self interest of immediate economic and social benefits. It is not only unfortunate for the institute, but also for all its stakeholders ~ like the bright minded students who come here for learning, the global base of alumni who over the last decades have proved to the world what India stands for, academicians who come from around the world perceiving this as a Mecca of management education (but very soon realize the money making game that goes inside), non-teaching staff who keeps on working hard despite the fact of complete zero transparency about promotions, variable pay and their career, family members of students and alumni, family members of teaching and non-teaching staff who agree to sacrifice a better standard of living for the institute and most importantly India ~ as an Indian Institute stands for India and Indians!
Being a die-hard fan of the IIMs, which I believe have created impeccable impact till date, I think it is my duty as an Indian to bring forth reality to public domain. I am aware that people holding positions of power at IIMA will continue to target and malign me personally and professionally, using the financial and social muscle power based on the global recognition of the institute and create social/legal/political wrath for me (and my family) with many more false and fabricated allegations, but my mind is without fear.
I am sure that career academicians like us can only get our education system cleared off the corruption and such power broker parasites who, by promoting unethical and immoral practices, are holding back our country to the eternal era of darkness and making fools of our students and their families.
List of Exhibits
1_1_Oct 10_2010_Proposal writing
2_Oct 15_2010_Email by Rekha Jain to USOF
3_Agreement with IIM-Idea Telecom Centre for USOF wireline broadband scheme and impact assessment
4_Aug 20_2011 - Accepted_ Meeting for USOF pilot study findings from Sawa, Chittourgarh
5_Aug 26_2011_Pilot Study report - Problem identified during pilot survery at Sawa, Chhitourgarh
6_Aug 29_2011_Kavita 2 rajanish_11_55 AM- Reply to USOF
7_Aug_30_2011_Rekha Jain to USOF_Survey Plan
7A_Sep 19_2011_Rekha to USOF_Second Pilot Report
8_26_Sep_2011_Kavita_10_12_AM_Changes made in the Questionnaires after the Pilot survey for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of USOF Broadband
9_26_Sep_2011_Rekha_10_48_AM_Changes made in the Questionnaires after the Pilot survey for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of USOF Broadband
10_26_Sep_2011_Rekha to Rajanish_11_05_AM_Changes made in the Questionnaires after the Pilot survey for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of USOF Broadband
11_Dec 19_2011_Report from Kavita - The report that we have to discuss today and the points incorporated in it according to the agreement with USOF
12_Dec 19_2011_Response to Kavita - The report that we have to discuss today and the points incorporated in it according to the agreement with USOF
13_Dec 19_2011_Methodology finalization email
14_Dec 28_2011_Kavita- The USOF updated report soft copy with updated tables
15_USOF_background-writeup-19dec11
16_USOF_background-writeup-28dec11
17_Turnitin_USOF_Report_1-1 (in part 2 of of this email trail)
18_Dec 31_2011_Email to Rekha Jain
19_Jan 9_2012_Email to Rekha_Withdraw from USOF
20_Jan 9_2012_Email from Rekha_to settle credits
