The controversy over the redesign of the logo of India’s premier management institute, the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), has not ended with the adoption of the new logo by its board. The controversy involves quite a few issues which touch upon IIMA’s identity, its self-image, and the decision-making process in the institute. It has adopted and unveiled the logo, which it says is “simple, bold and global” and reaffirms its identity and reflects its legacy. The institute has said that it had held consultations with stakeholders and incorporated the feedback in the new logo. Ever since the proposal for a change of logo was made known some months ago, there have been dissenting voices and objections. The need for a change was questioned in the first place, with many, including former alumni, faculty and others, finding no reason to change an established and well-recognised logo.
Though it is claimed that consultations were held before the new logo was finalised, there are complaints that they were scanty and inadequate. There were protests and even a resignation by a dean over the matter. The most important objection to the new logo was over the tampering with or dilution of the jaali motif in the original logo, taken from the Sidi Saiyyed mosque of Ahmedabad. The logo had combined the kalpatharu in the Indian tradition with the idiom of fine Islamic art, working out a fusion that represented the essential unity of India. The intricate flower and branch design has been done away with in the new logo. The Sanskrit tagline ‘Vidya Viniyogadvikasa’ (development through application of knowledge) has been retained, but all elements of the earlier logo, including the name of the institute, have been changed, edited or shifted to create the new one.
The criticism that this was done to de-emphasise the idea of a composite and inclusive culture that informed the original logo is valid. It gains credibility in the light of the many recent attempts to rewrite and sanitise history and to eliminate Islamic elements from it and from local and national traditions. These attempts have now gained momentum. Many monuments and institutions are being reassessed, repositioned, or renamed in accordance with the new political climate and its imperatives. It is unfortunate that the country’s topmost management institute has taken such a decision. A logo contributes to the brand of an institution, and there was little need and justification for IIMA to change it now. Even if it had to be done, it should have been on the basis of wider consultations and a consensus, without changing the basic character of the original logo.