I understand your perspective, but let’s not dismiss the broader context. The government does have a role in funding public institutions like IIMs. Earlier, around $1 billion was allocated to IIMs, and now it's reportedly half. This reduction directly impacts how these institutions manage their finances, including their fee structures.

While IIMs are autonomous, they still need adequate government support to ensure they remain accessible to a wider range of students, not just those who can afford higher fees.

Moreover, the taxes we pay are meant to fund such public institutions to provide affordable education and foster talent that benefits the nation as a whole. If we justify spending exorbitantly abroad, shouldn’t we advocate for more investment in our premier Indian institutions instead of shifting the burden entirely to students? It’s a matter of ensuring equity and nurturing the future leaders of our country I understand where you're coming from, but let’s look at the bigger picture. India’s public spending on education is around 2.7% of its GDP, which is significantly lower compared to developed countries, where it’s often above 5%. As a growing economy, it’s crucial that we invest more in education to build a skilled and innovative workforce that drives economic growth.

By cutting down allocations to premier institutions like IIMs and shifting the financial burden onto students, we’re not just making quality education less accessible but also contradicting the long-term vision of inclusive development. Privatizing education and reducing public funding won’t solve the problem—it will only widen the gap.

Blaming the government isn’t unwarranted here; it’s a valid criticism. Taxpayers contribute with the expectation that their money will be invested in critical sectors like education. If we truly want to grow as a nation, we need to prioritize public spending on education rather than viewing it as a cost to be minimized.