GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF ICSSR
or loyalty, and outside the black box of
brilliance, what is it that individuals must
do collectively – with, for and to each oth
er – to make institutions work? It is the
sense of institutional citizenship – rights,
duties, stakes, belonging – and the every
day realities of a research culture – its
rhythms, its investments and inter
dependencies – that help in opening up
institutions to better description.
Choosing Research Agendas
As a concrete example, take the ageold
question of how institutions identify their
research agendas. To say that projects un
dertaken at the behest of “funders” lead to
poor research is to invoke a truism so well
worn that it appears selfevidently true.
But why exactly does this happen? Are the
goals of “funders” always and greatly dif
ferent from “our” goals? If not, then why is
it that the divergences always trump the
convergences – why do signiicant areas of
overlap in the objectives fail to have a pos
itive impact on the quality of research? To
come at the same question from a differ
ent direction, what is the precise chain of
causation that links academic freedom to
excellence in research? And, inally, why
do we believe that steady state support is
the best bulwark for autonomy?
When we look at the current plans for
expanding our universities and replacing
the University Grants Commission with a
brand new commission, or even at all the
sound and fury surrounding the Lokpal
Bill, we are up against a very general
problem indeed: We continue to be
trapped in the false belief that a “few
good men” at the helm (and, no, I am not
asking that we add a token woman to the
group) will somehow, magically, redeem
us from all past sins. Institutions devoted
to social science research might seem like
A New Beginning?
Kalpana Kannabiran
How may ICSSR and its network
of institutes enable the growth
of social sciences? It is time
to move beyond assessments
and towards building different
possibilities into an archaic
system, using texts of different
kinds and bringing the diversity
and dynamism of the world
outside. The need is to frame
research questions differently and
reimagine higher education
in the process.
Kalpana Kannabiran (kalpana.kannabiran@
gmail.com) is director of the Council for
Social Development, Hyderabad, an ICSSR
funded institute.
34
…it should also be emphasised that despite
all its shortfalls, the ICSSR has never been
an obstacle hindering research in the social
sciences (Report of the Committee Consti
tuted by the Government of India to Review
the Functioning of ICSSR, 2011, p 43).
Introduction
T
he “crisis in the social sciences”,
has been discussed at length in the
last few years, especially after the
publication of the Fourth Review Com
mittee Report in 2007. The discussion in
the EPW (2 February 2008), on the Indian
Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR)
in particular, brought to the fore several
concerns and questions – some of them
interrogating the framing of the crisis itself.
The most recent report by the committee
led by Deepak Nayyar echoes, briely in 51
pages, the arguments of the Vaidyanathan
Committee of 2007.
Key Observations
In the main, the report draws attention to
the disparity between funding for the social
sciences and the sciences;1 the disparity
august 13, 2011
odd places to look for what is wrong and
right with our institutions overall. But,
given that they are inhabited by people
who are supposed to be more prepared
than most to ask and answer dificult
questions, there may be surprises here and
something to learn.
In sum, rather than stories of decline
leveraged on a glorious past, we require
good descriptions of the present that will
help us map possible institutional futures,
and perhaps even navigate our way to one
that is distinctly better. At any rate this is
one way of responding positively to the
extreme optimism of the MHRDsponsored
review report on the ICSSR.
Notes
1
2
See the set of articles in the special section “Fourth
Review of ICSSR” (EPW, 2 February 2008).
For a fuller discussion of knowledge and higher
education today see the issue of Seminar, “Demo
cratising Knowledge: A Symposium on Reforming
Higher Education”, No 624, August 2011.
between the ICSSR and the University Grants
Commission (UGC);2 the grossly inadequate
budgetary allocation to ICSSR, which in a
downward spiral saw a decline by 17% in the
average grant to each of the 27 research insti
tutes in this period; the maintenance of fac
ulty at a level way below the critical mini
mum necessary for sustainable research pro
grammes and longterm planning of research
agendas; a decline in independent research
output; a less than optimum level of publica
tion by faculty of research institutes;3 evi
dence of “a strong regional bias” in favour of
Delhi and northern India.4 While no compa
rable regional bias was found in the matter of
research projects, the committee gave voice
to widespread perceptions that “the process
of approving research projects is…inlu
enced by patronage rather than by consider
ations of merit alone”.5
Dismantling Barriers
The critique of the structure of bureaucracy
in ICSSR and the institutes it supports – in
the Nayyar report and in the discussion
following the Vaidyanathan report – is com
prehensive and for the most part well taken.
There is, however, one point that bears
reiteration. This has to do with the question
of representation – along lines of gender,
region and other indices. It is a troubling
fact that both patronage and authority
vol xlvi no 33
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF ICSSR
continue to be gendered through practices
of avoidance, with the constitution of all
male committees at different levels of aca
demic administration remaining a com
placent possibility. This is true of numbers
on other indices of diversity as well. The
northeastern region, for instance, is poorly
represented on all counts. That represen
tation is not a question of tokenism, but
that it alters the terms of discussion and
deliberation, is a fact that is yet to form part
of administrative commonsense, therefore
an exercise that ICSSR and its institutes
must invest some intellectual energy in.
The committee highlights what it calls
“missed opportunities” – the complete lack
of synergy between ICSSR institutes; the
absence, for the most part, of partnerships
with universities or the UGC; and its weak
presence in policy spaces and newly emerg
ing areas of interdisciplinary research (p 42).
It is to this brief section that I now turn.
A Possible Way Forward
I will use the epigraph as my point of de
parture to think through some new ways
in which we could broaden the imagination
of the social sciences. How may ICSSR and
its network of institutes enable the growth
of social sciences? It is time to move beyond
assessments and towards building different
possibilities into an archaic system, using
texts of different kinds, bringing the diver
sity and dynamism of the world outside into
the university and harnessing this rich
knowledge and experience to serve the larger
interests of the development of the social
sciences – framing research questions dif
ferently and reimagining higher education
in the process. The effort is long overdue.
While there is a widespread perception of a
qualitative decline in social sciences,
enrolment igures show that in 200506,
45% of students in institutions of higher edu
cation were in the arts and social sciences, a
similar trend evident in proportion of doc
torates for the same year (Krishna and Krish
na 2010). Against this backdrop, although
we have seen a sharp rise in “institutions
of excellence” and now the proliferation of
central universities, this has not really al
tered the fact that the largest number of
students from underprivileged backgrounds
can only access public, state universities.
And yet, these students, through their life
worlds, carry the potential of breaking
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 13, 2011
barriers with pathbreaking analyses, a
point amply demonstrated through the
volume of incisive writing, in English too,
but far more in the regional languages – not
to speak of innumerable personal accounts
of teachers from these institutions of ani
mated discussions in and outside classrooms.
For this to be possible, however, we
need to put in place a multitiered inter
vention, the irst part of which must look
at undergraduate education in the state.
While ICSSR institutes need not engage in
undergraduate teaching, it is important to
develop partnerships with undergraduate
institutions and bring good research into
undergraduate teaching, even while ex
ploring ways in which the needs of under
graduate education might inluence the
framing of research processes. The Andhra
Pradesh State Council of Higher Educa
tion, for instance, has revised and stand
ardised social science and humanities
syllabi at the undergraduate level across
the 41 universities in the state – of which
21 have social science programmes – after
a 20year gap. This at a time when all
reports on the status of higher education
in India have dwelt at length on the prob
lems of stagnation and lack of imagination
in the delivery of higher education.
The major obstacle, however, is the utter
paucity of teaching and learning materials
at the undergraduate level, both in English
and other mediums of instruction. An in
novative textbook production programme
that will introduce textbooks for under
graduate students accompanied by teachers’
manuals, phasewise for all social sciences
and humanities, have the potential of revo
lutionising undergraduate and postgraduate
education because they will focus on reim
agining the disciplines in the social sciences
by drawing on nonconventional texts,
diverse sources and local histories of strug
gles and argumentation. While the question
of the virtue of a standard, unimaginative
syllabus remains, there is also the unex
plored possibility of a radical, subversive
interpretation of syllabi, investing them with
rigour and meaning that was not intended
in the formulation. The task of writing in a
manner that will strengthen the quality of
teaching and learning at the undergraduate
level – the feeder channel for robust, critical
research – is especially crucial, considering
these universities cannot be matched in
vol xlvi no 33
terms of inclusiveness and access. It is
imperative for some of us to be the bridge.
Over a period of three years, which is the
time that students go through an under
graduate degree programme, the character
and parameters of learning can be trans
formed through a textbook programme.
The second part of the intervention could
focus on building a doctoral research pro
gramme that opens the system of higher
education up to students from underprivi
leged social and economic backgrounds and
builds research capacities through close
mentoring and supervision in an inclusive
manner. The effort should be to hone
knowledge, capability and diligence in
research capacity in the state systems on par
with more privileged and wellendowed
centres of learning.6 It is important to be
able to take doctoral research possibilities
to irst and secondgeneration students from
nonEnglish speaking backgrounds, build
ing capacities for research and writing step
by step. In a sense, research institutes then
become a support to the inclusive but ill
equipped state universities, that prepare
students till the postgraduate level, and for
reasons of scale and capacity are unable to
guide doctoral research closely. We cannot
forget that these are students with un
explored potential, who are, for the most
part, out of the “brain drain” circuit.
The third part of this intervention could
look at the possibilities for strengthening
the capacities of people who cannot afford
a full time education. Currently, the open
universities are entrusted with the entire
responsibility for fulilling this huge task.
Conversations with scholars and oficers
in charge of these institutions foreground
the need for linkages with and support to
the open university system, in a manner
such that afiliation (which ICSSR insti
tutes are dependent on to run their aca
demic programmes) results in a twoway
engagement – conferring recognition on
the institute for its programmes, as well as
making it obligatory on the institute to
shoulder the responsibility for creating
teaching materials for the distance mode.
This is especially important, given the fact
that with very few exceptions, open uni
versities are focused on imparting educa
tion in the social sciences and humanities.
A fourth part must address the needs of
teachers in colleges and universities, who
35
GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF ICSSR
at present are constrained to teach with
no access to facilities or materials. Initiat
ing regular dialogues with teachers and
developing materials in collaboration with
them will go a long way towards helping
higher education to shift tracks. This needs
to go far beyond the orientation and re
fresher course mode, to a more sustained
professional relationship that brings uni
versity and college teachers, independent
scholaractivists and scholars in research
centres together at short intervals, specif
ically to discuss recent developments and
materials in the social sciences.
Breaking New Ground
The entire discussion on research priori
ties in the ICSSR system has focused on
traditional social science disciplines – eco
nomics, sociology, political science, etc.
While a range of disciplines are listed in
the call for proposals issued from time to
time, the focus on critical ields like law is
negligible, and a focus on disability studies
absent. I will conclude this essay with a
brief look at the possibilities of interdisci
plinary law. While the issue of relevance
to policy has been addressed by all the
participants in these debates over the
years, an area that is critical and com
pletely off the radar of social science re
views is relevance of this research to the
development of jurisprudence in courts.
The ICSSR sponsored the preparation of
two trend reports on the Sociology of Law
– one by Veena Das that covered studies
in this ield till 1969 and the second by
Upendra Baxi, which covered studies from
197080. J S Gandhi conducted a third
review in 2008. There is now increasing
recognition on the indispensability of
adopting an interdisciplinary standpoint
in pedagogy and research, both within the
broad ield of law and within other disci
plines as well.7 An exploration of the pos
sibilities of an indigenous jurisprudence
as well is important to the exercise of
critical curricular interventions in the
social sciences and humanities. Drawing
on the work of radical historians to look
at the sources of justice and legitimacy,
and the developments of the normative
order through the ancient and medieval
periods, and reexamining the writings
of M K Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, Jotirao
Phule, Periyar, Tarabai Shinde, Satyamurti,
36
Ayyankali and others like them from
different parts of the subcontinent who de
veloped an anticolonial theory of justice,
will provide a much needed historiography
of constitutionalism on the subcontinent.
The renewed focus on the commons
provides an important space for engage
ment with the idea of social justice and
constitutionalism – one that takes us
through but also way beyond classic “envi
ronment concerns” alone. In an important
sense, the Constitution of India is a com
monsinitself and sets out a broad net
work of general and speciic rules for the
governance of commonsatlarge across a
range – within the framework of social
justice, and the recognition of the need to
create access – both to the commonsin
itself and the commonsatlarge. Also,
importantly, the Constitution fosters the
ideas of pluralism and diversity, so that
both in itself and with reference to the com
monsatlarge, it has the potential to side
step the pitfalls of a monolithic, monocul
ture of rules. Sustained research on the con
stitutional foundations of the commons, and
an exploration of the social and political
foundations of the Constitution and laws are
indispensable to the endeavour of social
science – theoretical and applied.
The relationship between law and liter
ature is an important one. From laws on
sedition and censorship to the vitality of
resistance literature in times of struggle,
creative writing has played a critical role
in shaping the public conscience from the
time of the freedom struggle to the con
temporary times of new social move
ments. And, importantly, there is a large
corpus of writing and oral literature
across regions and languages that speak
to alternative ideas of justice. An as yet
relatively uncharted ield, this provides a
rich context for research. This is of course
not to speak of the use of creative writing
by courts to frame arguments. A recent
judgment of the Supreme Court triggered
much debate because it quoted Joseph
Conrad,8 and another on inclusive educa
tion carries Tagore’s “Where the Mind is
Without Fear” as its epigraph.9
Conclusions
that govern social science research. The
repetition of the terms and observations
of ICSSR’s Fourth Review Committee by a
committee constituted by the government
probably heralds governmental action on
these reports. While funding is a major
constraint, relected immediately in inse
curity of tenure and skeletal stafing, the
remedies are not exhausted by an in
creased budgetary allocation and in
creased transparency in appointments at
the helm alone. What is required is a de
tailed mapping of the substantive trans
formations based on recommendations
made so far (both in the discussions
around the review reports, but also in the
rich and voluminous debate on the social
sciences between 2000 and 2011) and con
crete planning to make them actionable
and sustainable in the long run.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
There has been a more than adequate de
liberation on the need and modalities of
transforming the institutional structures
august 13, 2011
Between 2005 and 2010, funding for the ICSSR
from the Government of India shrank by 7%.
During this period, the grant to ICSSR was only
2.3% of the total grant to CSIR and 11% of the
total grant to ICMR. This is not the situation of
ICSSR alone. Within the UGC, the committee
found that social sciences received only 12% of
the total expenditure allocated for research in
social and basic sciences. As a remedy, the com
mittee suggested a increase of 25 times in fund
ing for the ICSSR and the building of a Rs 1,000
crore corpus to support newly emerging areas
of research.
The total grant to ICSSR was only 1% of the total
grant received by UGC.
On an average, the committee found, a faculty
member takes ive years to write a book and one
and a half years to write a book chapter. Barring
a few exceptional individuals in these institutions,
at a general level, the committee found faculty
had very few publications in peerreviewed jour
nals. This observation comes with a caveat that
the comment pertains only to quantity and not
quality of published work.
Between 2000 and 2010, Delhi and north India
together received more than 60% of doctoral fellow
ships, 67% of general fellowships, 58% of senior
fellowships and nearly 70% of national fellow
ships, p 32.
P 38. The troublesome issue of patronage has
also been raised by others, notably Chatterjee
(2008). This, in my view, is not a problem limited
to research projects alone. The deliberate culti
vation of personal contacts with key persons
(oficers, bureaucrats, academic members) in
ICSSR is seen by senior researchers with good
research and publication records to be the route
to securing grants. The evidence of unevenness
in fellowship disbursal raises the question of
whether regional disparity is tied into cliques of
mutual patronage. Whether or not this is true,
it is a matter that needs to be addressed directly
through clear procedures and other trans
parency measures.
This was in fact the thought behind the effort ini
tiated by the Government of Kerala in 2008 in set
ting up the Expert Group on Legal Education
Reform in Kerala under the chairmanship of
N R Madhava Menon. The group after travelling
vol xlvi no 33
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF ICSSR
7
extensively and having discussions with faculty and
students in every single law college/department
in the state recommended concrete strategies to
bring the entire law college network in the state
on par with a national law school system as it was
originally conceived, especially in terms of the
rigour of teaching and institutional mechanisms
for academic outreach.
For a cogent account of the development of the
sociology of law and its intersections with feminist
research see Baxi (2008).
8
9
Nandini Sundar and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh,
Writ Petition (C) No 250 of 2007.
Indian Medical Association vs Union of India and
Others, Civil Appeal Nos 8170 and 8171 of 2009.
References
Baxi, Pratiksha (2008): “Feminist Contributions to
Sociology of Law: A Review”, Economic & Political
Weekly, 25 October, 7985.
Governance, Autonomy
and Social Science Research
Chatterjee, Partha (2008): “The Near Future of Social
Science Research in India”, Economic & Political
Weekly, XLIII: 5, 2 February, 3840.
Economic & Political Weekly (2008): Special Section
on Fourth Review of ICSSR, XLIII: 5, 2 February
2008, pp 2141.
Krishna, V Venni and Usha Krishna (2010): “Social
Sciences in South Asia”, Knowledge Divides: 2010
World Social Science Report, International Social
Science Council, UNESCO.
composition of ICSSR, its internal organisa
tion, and the policy framework governing
institutional funding.
Governance and Autonomy Issues
B Venkatesh Kumar
Other than the funding issue,
the review committee has
highlighted governance and
autonomy as crucial issues to
be addressed in the ICSSR. Any
efforts by the government to
tackle these areas will have to
be based on policy decisions on
the structural composition of the
body, its internal organisation
and funding.
B Venkatesh Kumar (venk71@gmail.com) is with
the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
august 13, 2011
T
he committee appointed to review
and restructure the Indian Council
of Social Science Research (ICSSR)
was mandated to review among other issues,
its structure, functioning, and performance
over the last ive years in promoting social
science research.
Introduction
So far, the ICSSR has been reviewed by
four committees1 and a oneman committee
(Anand Swarup Committee), which did a
limited review of the internal organisation
and systems in 1995. A common charac
teristic that emerges from the reports of
these committees is a concern for the struc
ture and autonomy of the ICSSR. The most
recent MHRD review committee also raises
concerns of governance and autonomy.
Other key concerns lagged by the
MHRDappointed committee are:
• Signiicant decline and decay in many
of the institutes and inding new ways of
reinventing them.
• Low amounts set aside for fellowship
thus discouraging bright researchers.
• Regional bias in disbursement of
fellowships.
• Modest programme of international
collaborations.
• Small quantum of funds provided to
research projects.
• Low number of research projects
sanctioned.
Any efforts to address the above issues
will have to be critically based on three
central elements, requiring policy decisions
by the government. These are: the structural
vol xlvi no 33
The ICSSR was set up as a society. The
Memorandum of Association (MOA) of
the society has attracted much criticism
for long.
All previous review committees (set up
by the ICSSR) had pointed out that the
structure of the present MOA with its em
phasis on nominated members would lead
to problems for the council. The review
committees, in turn, suggested methods
to make the process of nomination more
transparent but none of these changes
were ever incorporated in the MOA.
Another related issue concerns the term
of ofice of the members which is gov
erned by rule (4) as stated:
4 Term of Ofice:
(i) In the irst reconstitution of the council in
1972 onethird (or six) of the social scientist
members shall be appointed for one year,
another onethird of the social scientist
members shall be appointed for two years
and the remaining six social scientists will
be appointed for three years.
(ii) Except as provided in subrule i above
the term of ofice of all members shall be
three years.
Clearly, when the council was set up, it
was visualised that it would be constituted
on the Rajya Sabha model with rolling
tenures. This structure implies that some
degree of institutional memory is preserved.
However, in practice, appointments have
not been made on this pattern. This has
resulted in a complete loss of institutional
autonomy. A quick review of the composi
tion of the council from 1980 to 2005 will
reveal this.
The problem of governance and auto
nomy exists in research institutes too. The
third ICSSR review committee observed
that as the “founders” of the institutes fade
37