The academic ranking of world universities in 2007 compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Ton University noted that while universities and institutions from the US, UK, Europe, Japan and China figured among the top 200 in the world, Indian institutions were  conspicuous by their absence. The survey was conducted using four indicators, namely, number of alumni and staff winning Nobel prizes or field medals, highly cited researchers in broad subject areas, articles published in highly rated journals, and academic performance with respect to the size of an institution.
Sadly, whatever criteria or region one considers, social science research institutions in India are conspicuous by their absence which reflects the poor state of social science research in India. This is particularly pitiable considering the efforts made by the central and state governments and other agencies to promote social science research.

To give a fillip to social science research the central government set up the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) under the Human Resource Development Ministry way back in 1969, which facilitated establishment of ICSSR institutes in different states. From about nine ICSSR institutes in the 70s, the number of these institutes rose to 20 in the 80s and presently there are 27 institutes. They are funded by both the ICSSR and respective state governments, apart from other agencies.

Besides this, the ICSSR also funds social science projects in universities and NGOs. Most of these institutes are autonomous and registered under the Societies registration acts.

A major reason which prompted the government to promote such autonomous institutes was to create an ideal environment conducive for research unfettered by bureaucratic hassles as in government and university departments. These institutes were led by eminent persons such as V K R V Rao, K N Raj, C H Hanumantha Rao and were also able to attract meritorious persons.

Unfortunately, many of these institutes have become highly bureaucratic and controlled by caste oligarchies or academic mafias. Many directors are neither known for their academic scholarship nor for administrative acumen and seem to have obtained their positions based on their caste tag, personal equations, and extent of  their pliability. The atmosphere in these institutions is far from conducive for scholarly work and faculty are having a declining say in the running of these institutions.

Non academics such as bureaucrats, corporate gurus not known for their research or academic skills, are dictating terms as to how to conduct research and run these institutes. Academic and research merchants not known for their scholarship except their nexus with funding agencies are writing project reports like instant coffee, taking advantage of the internet and cut and paste technology.

Sycophancy and mediocrity are the qualities in demand and genuine scholars find it difficult to survive in this atmosphere. Faculty are not assessed in terms of the quality of their work as evinced by citations and publications in internationally rated journals but in terms of the number of projects, reports and papers published anywhere. Money making rather than good scholarly work is now the mantra in this globalisation era.

The standards in some institutes are even lower than in the universities. As  per UGC norms a Masters degree in the relevant subject with minimum 55 per cent marks is an essential qualification for a faculty position in a University. But in some institutes 50 per cent would suffice. For the post of Professor, the UGC stipulates experience in guiding Ph D students as an essential qualification but these institutes either don't prescribe to this but stipulate mere “ability” to guide Ph D Students and even that, as a “desirable” qualification only.

Advertisements to recruit faculty are often tailor made to suit or unsuit candidates  favoured or disfavoured by the directors or managements. These institutes have become citadels of upper caste power. Promising people especially from disadvantaged groups find it difficult to enter or go up the academic ladder in these institutes.
While corruption and nepotism in governments and universities receive considerable public attention, the developments in these institutes remain outside the public gaze. Some of the institutes have even rented out their premises to NGOs and private trusts started by retired professors who use the institute’s name to obtain funds but retain these funds in their private trusts.

A Committee set up to review the working of ICSSR institutes under the Chairmanship of A Vaidyanathan, in its report submitted in March 2007, has highlighted the growing commercialisation of research, neglect of independent scholarly research, mediocre quality of research in some institutes, with environment for academic excellence being hardly valued, and powerful politicians and bureaucrats lording these institutes, etc.
During 2004-05 the average publications per institute was a dismal 1.1 per year. Of 58 papers published during 2004-05 as many as 38 were by researchers from just 4 institutes. Of 127 project reports submitted over the last five years two-thirds was evaluated as mediocre.

Although the report makes several recommendations to improve the quality of social science research, the prospects are dim.

(The writer is Professor at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.)