Saffron blues

By Harsh Sethi

EVER SINCE the BJP came to power and Acharya Murli Manohar Joshi assumed charge of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, liberal apprehension about the potential saffronisation of our educational institutions has touched a new high. The BJP, more so its pater familias, the RSS, is a firmly ideological body. And nowhere are its fixations more clearly expressed than in the domain of education and culture.

The script has so far evolved on predictable lines. Starting with the Ministry, changes were effected in a variety of institutions. Be it the NCERT, the NCTE, the NEIPA, the UGC, the Indian Institute of Advance Studies, the ICHR or the ICSSR - to name a few - we saw a rapid change in the composition of the Boards and in the appointment of chief executives. True, there was protest, but muted and ineffective. It seemed as if Mr. Joshi's victory was complete. While his colleagues in the NDA Government were occupied with turf battles over who would control what, Mr. Joshi had swiftly moved to place ideological fellow travellers and favourites in positions from where the cultural battle to rid the country of the ghosts of Macaulay and pseudo-secularism could be joined.

The tightest of scripts, however, have a way of coming unstuck. And nowhere has the drama assumed more grisly overtones than in the ICSSR presided over by the veteran diplomat and academic, Prof. M. L. Sondhi. For months now newspapers have been rife with stories about the deepening conflict between the Chairman, members of the Council, the professional staff and the Ministry. Of late, however, the conflict seems to have come to a head. We now have the unusual situation of the Chairman writing an article (Hindustan Times, April 15) that the ICSSR needs to be set right and accusing vested interests and entrenched lobbies - in the staff, among the Board members of the Council and the Ministry - of seeking to subvert the ``liberal and pluralistic values to which he has adhered in political and academic life''. Surprisingly, or not so, he argues that ``the ICSSR is under unprecedented threat today. This is not from the RSS as a formal institution, but essentially from an ideological cabal within the ICSSR Council, led from the outside by an individual who functions as an extra-constitutional authority in the HRD Ministry''.

This, even in these unusual times, when propriety and decorum are not highly regarded values, is a statistical outlier. Heads of institutions are not expected to publicly protest against the functioning of outfits they are responsible for. True, years back, the late N.T. Rama Rao as Chief Minister went on dharna in front of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, complaining about non- cooperation from his officers. But then he was an actor- politician and probably found it difficult to resist slipping back into one of his screen avatars.

Are we then witnessing, as episodic reports in the press would have us believe, a battle between saffron hardliners and a beleaguered, liberal shairman for control over the premier body for funding and supporting social science research in the country? If matters were as simple there would be no dearth of support for Prof. Sondhi, this despite the fact that he too, like the cabal he castigates, was appointed by the same Ministry. There is the little matter over the invitation extended by the Council to Mr. Bangaru Laxman on his assuming the post of BJP president, ostensibly to deliver a lecture on national integration. Of course, now that post-Tehelka Mr. Laxman stands discredited, no one is willing to own up to the decision.

Critics of Prof. Sondhi point out that despite being honorary chairman, he has been acting as the chief executive, the prerogative of the member-secretary. But then, the Council has not had a full-time member- secretary for some years. The previous incumbent, who too was only officiating, left because of undue interference. No meeting of the Council has taken place in months, with the result that no research projects or fellowships have been approved. Earlier this year, under pressure from some members of the Council, a meeting was convened. But it witnessed such acrimony and trading of charges that it had to be abandoned without conducting any business. A bit like our Parliament in the last session.

Meanwhile, the Chairman is busy organising well-publicised seminars, one which reportedly cost the ICSSR close to Rs. 60 lakhs. This figure, of course, does not account for the expenditure on trips made by favoured members of the staff despatched to diverse locations in France, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Israel, Taiwan and South Korea to personally hand over the invitations. When the ICSSR, like many of our higher education institutions, is woefully short of funds, and its grant budget for individual research projects and fellowships has sunk to Rs. 40 lakhs (2000-2001), such a style of functioning and expression of priorities is nothing short of scandalous.

Equally, it is unclear what one is to make of a decision to initiate a new research institute in Manali (Himachal Pradesh) in the name of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, this when the existing corpus of 27 research institutes under the ICSSR umbrella are facing severe financial cuts. Would it be uncharitable to view the decision to set up an institute in Manali, a location that our Prime Minister is very fond of, as one of sycophancy? So also the renaming of its documentation centre as the Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Gateway to Knowledge.

It is true that many of the current members of the ICSSR Council, honourable exceptions apart, are not particularly known for their contribution to social sciences. Evidently, they were nominated to this position on account of their proximity to the Sangh Parivar. What they seem upset about is that despite being part of the faithful, they have been kept out of the decision-making and patronage loop. This, more than their proximity to Mr. Joshi (seen as hardliner) and the chairman to Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee (moderate?), seems responsible for the stand-off. In the event, the net loser is the Council, its institutes and the social science research community.

There is little denying that the ICSSR today an institution in terminal decay. And while attempts to stack it with saffron faithful, as also the fallouts of sectional battles within the larger Parivar, has exacerbated the crisis within and without, an equal share of the blame must be laid at the doorstep of the original charter as also the lack of interest in our research community to safeguard the autonomy and integrity of its own institutions.

One is not pointing merely to the fact that the Council is fully funded by the MHRD. Or that the members, including the Chairperson and Member-Secretary, are Ministry nominees. It is equally that its entire rules of business - the procedures for grant making, the appointment of professional staff, the emolument structure - faithfully replicate government rules. It does, therefore, require both exceptional individuals and an enabling liberal environment for the institution to function professionally. Like respect, autonomy for institutions and individuals cannot be handed over as largesse. It has to be fought for and won. Nor can it ever be safely assumed that once present, it cannot be whittled away.

Let us not forget that for many years, the late Prof. Ravinder Kumar was able to convert and run the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library as the favoured site in the capital for meaningful research and debate. The NMML too is fully funded by the MHRD. Nevertheless, under Ravinder Kumar's able guardianship it charted out an autonomous course, provided space to a wide variety of dissenting imaginations, at no time sacrificing high standards of quality. In a city marked by a culture of back-biting and factionalism, it won reputation as a liberal and hospitable institution, including from those uneasy with the Nehru association.

More than complain about cabals and vested interests, Prof. Sondhi needs to take a leaf out of the NMML book. Maybe then the wider community too will share his distress and engage in battle.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Traveller Tito
Next     : Risks of genetic engineering