The organizers of the Seminar assigned this topic for exposition but I would like to reverse the order of items in the title: I should prefer to deal with Education and Training first, and reflect on the aspect of research in the end. As perhaps, without proper education and training research has hardly any significance. And again, for excellent teaching and training research is not a necessary element but it may of course, be auxiliary in these cases.

Secondly, I do not propose to either review the processes of education, training and research or attempt any evaluation of standards of education (including training and research) in the area of humanities and social sciences in the country in this short article. I propose to raise certain issues that indicate the policy concerns. It is perhaps not possible due to the huge educational enterprise obtaining in India and due also to the fact that it entails an investigation by another Commission.

I may honestly submit that being educated and trained in social science in an educational milieu which is trichotomised into science, social science and humanities in the country, I am only party competent to speak about social Science: Humanities is not my cup of tea but since it is an essential component of any educational enterprise, at all levels in any society, I would certainly like to make brief comments in this respect more particularly at the foundation level-school level, that may point to some policy concerns.

J.H. Plumb edited a book Crises in the Humanities (1964). In its ‘Introduction’ Plumb writes: “A hundred, fifty, even twenty years ago, a traditional of culture, based on the Classics, on Scriptures, on History and Literature, bound the governing classes together and projected the image of gentlemen. It was a curious mixture of humanistic principles and a national pride …. These subjects-History, Classics, Literature and Divinity-were, with Mathematics, the core of the educational system and were believed to have peculiar virtues in producing politicians, civil servants, Imperial administrators and legislators” (p.7). According to Plumb, traditional culture was based on the classics, scriptures, divinity etc., that projected the ‘image of a gentleman’ and bred civil servants, legislators, politicians etc., but the common man was out of its pale. The folk culture and the cultural element of the toiling masses was perhaps not the concern of humanities. And, it was not true of only the U.K. or the other Western world, in other traditional societies too it was equally true. For example, in India the ‘classical language-Sanskrit’ and for that matter the ‘classics’ the ‘divinity’, the ‘holy scriptures’ were restricted to only the higher Varna, especially the Brahman and the Kshatriya, and thus, the ‘humanities’ did not touch the larger chunk of our population. The traditional ancient education as also the feudal/Imperial education, also encompassed only a smaller chunk of the privileged castes/classes of the Indian population. This amply clarifies the role of humanities in producing ‘gentlemen'.

Plumbs's observations that “the rising tide of scientific and industrial societies combined with the battering of two World Wars, has shattered the confidence of humanists in their capacity to lead or instruct is indeed true”. Uncertain of their “social function their practitioners have taken refuge in two desperate courses-both suicidal. Either they blindly cling to their traditional attitudes and pretend that their function is what it was and that all will be well so long as change is repelled, or they retreat into their own private professional world and deny any social function to their subject. And so the humanities are at the cross-roads, at a crisis in their existence: they must either change the image that they present, adapt themselves to the needs to a society dominated by science and technology, or retreat into social triviality. Thus arises the crucial problem facing the humanities-History, Classics, English, Fine Arts, Divinity, Philosophy…” (ibid: 7–8). The response to change by any society is too slow and feeble and corresponding changes in other established institutions e.g. education, are hardly visible. It look a fairly long time for the educational system in the West to adapt to the changes brought about by the revolution of science and technology. Humanities in this march have lagged sufficiently behind. The story is not very different in other societies the world over, including India.

Yet another set-back to the position and prestige of Humanities has occurred due to the contemporary processes of liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG), which have boosted commercialization and bolstered a ‘consumerist culture’ the world over. It has thus overtaken sophistication, social/moral valuation, humanism and refined citizenship, which were at one time, the hallmark of ‘gentlemen'. The rise of umpteen professions due to science, the technology, international trade, commerce, industrial and business gave an impetus to subject/disciplines, other than humanities. These new disciplines have a writ over old traditional subjects of study.

The metropolitan-urban the international-capitalist, the multinational-industrialist and global-elite orientations have given birth to subjects like ‘management’, ‘international trade’, ‘Information Technology’. ‘e-Commerce’, etc., etc., pushing aside Classics, Fine Arts, History, Literature, Divinity and Philosophy.

And knowledge, which was at one time contained in Natural Philosophy and Moral/Social Philosophy, first got divided into Science and Liberal Arts, and then into Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences. In fact, in the humanities are grouped such subjects of study which are literary, related to culture, devoted to human interests, and classics and scriptures. As argued earlier, with the change in human interests, peoples’ inclinations, community's culture and ‘economic devaluation’ of scriptures, classics, physiology etc, the humanities got relegated to obscurity. The key objective of any education, particularly higher education, in the contemporary context is professional/occupational placement of the educated, economic security of the individual, higher and higher earnings and ensured employment of the educated masses. The humanities in the changed context failed to fulfill these objectives. But, at the school level the humanities are still functional in one way or the other. At the level of higher education, the humanities are in search of a new role, supplementing the new emerging areas of study at the universities, colleges and other technical and professional education institutions. Let us examine the place of humanities at the School level.

Ian Lister in ‘The Teaching of the Humanities in the Schools’ said, “So far the part to be played by the humanities in the schools has been seen from a point of view looking outwards from their own position: it is even more important to access it in general perspective of the debate concerning the pattern of education in the schools and more particularly in its relationship to the problems of specialization, and that polarization between the humanities and science which, C.P. Snow has said ‘is a sheer loss to us all. To us as people, and to our society’” (ibid: 162). Lister has pointed to these important problems in relation to the ‘humanities’ in the school: (i) pattern of education in schools (in the U.K. the public and grammar school systems also indicate to differential patterns of education); (ii) problems of specialization, and (iii) polarization between the humanities and science (and now between humanities, social science and science). These problems, it may be noted, are not merely restricted to the school-level education but extend to the higher level too, which we shall discuss later.

Lister further comments about specialization that, “Many writers have alluded to our distinctive propensity for specialization, and the peculiarly English problem of specialization in the schools. Shortage of university places, and the resulting competition, is one of the great causes of premature specialization, and university expansion and the easing of the fierce competition for places would greatly reduce the difficulties of the schools. This problem of specialization is faced not only by public schools and grammar schools: our whole system is permeated by the specialist idea. It has even challenged some of the secondary modern schools, which were set up ‘to provide a good all around secondary education, not focused primarily on the traditional subjects of the school curriculum but developing out of the interests of children’ (ibid). It is expected that the expansion of the university education and easing of competition in the system will act as correctives in the situation of premature specialization but this is yet to be corroborated by new facts. However, the polarization between humanities and science has now encompassed social science, as the third pole, in the school education system. This polarization is responsible for truncated education of young pupils.

A word of caution in respect to specialization: “Some schools have ignored the deeper contributions that Religion, the Classics, Literature, and History can make to education. Other schools, fearing that their scholarship results will decline in a highly selective educational system whose ultimate achievement is to reject almost everyone, have introduced programmes of non-specialist work which are more decorative than effective” (Lister, ibid: 165). It may indeed be quite difficult to compare the situation obtaining in the U.K. with the Indian School Education System but one may notice that ‘non-specialist’ subjects viz. social service, project work etc., introduced in 1986 by the new Education Policy in India are only decorative. Vocationalization at the school level, so recommended by the Education Commission has been totally flouted.

Apart from the colonial system of school education, the Sanskrit Pathshalas and Arabic Mdarsas are still functioning in the country. From Montessory, Kindergarten to Tat-Patti pre-primary: from sub-urban Playgroup to so-called ‘Public’ schools, all cater to the educational needs of the tribal, rural and urban children in India. At the primary, post-primary, middle and secondary educational levels there are different types and verities of schools in the country. From big Church sponsored schools to secular State educational institutions to privately-run education-shops, there are innumerable centres which impart ‘education’ to the children of the growing population. Innumerable Commissions and Committees, especially after the independence of India, have looked into the educational enterprise, its quantity, quality and quagmire in the country. But even today, on the one hand, we have ‘building-less schools’, ‘single-teacher schools’, ‘pupil-less schools’, are on the other hand there are coming-up, ‘air-conditioned schools transporting its students in air conditioned buses, and catering-lunch etc., that being done by five-star air-conditioned hotels! This has resulted in a flagrant violation of our National Policy on Education, 1968, that aimed “to promote national progress, a sense of common citizenship and culture, and to strengthen national integration…” This depressing development in education in the country also infringes upon the egalitarianism as enshrined in the new Educational Policy of 1986, that laid down that “The concept of a National System of Education implies that, upto a given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex, have access to education of a comparable quality. To achieve this, the Government will initiate appropriately funded programmes. Effective measures will be taken in the direction of the Common School System recommended in the 1968 Policy” (NPE. 1986. Part III. 3.1: emphasis given by the author). Not only that the objectives of the National Education Policy are unfulfilled but the different education systems, as described above, have created dangerous hierarchies in Indian society.

In the existing differential education scenario it is a sham to talk of any improvement in the existing educational efforts or to discuss about either the role or quality of school education, more particularly about the education of humanities or social science, and for that matter even that of science, in the majority of our schools. Yet, it may be relevant here to once again refer to the National Education Policy, 1968, that had envisaged a common educational structure — 10+2+3; it has been accepted by all the States. However, the 1986 Educational Policy had stipulated a further break-up of the first 10 years, to move towards a quality elementary education, into 5 years of primary education, 3 years of upper primary, followed by 2 years of High School level of education. In spite of the fact it has now been stabilized, no uniformity in the syllabi and/or standards of teaching and learning have been accomplished yet. This could not perhaps, be achieved due to the fact that there are more than eighteen major State Boards of School Education apart from the CBSE, ICSE, NIOS and a few Universities that prescribe courses and conduct examinations at the 10th and Intermediate levels of education, and innumerable other agencies, governmental, quasi-governmental and others, that regulate pre-primary, primary and middle level education.

The existence of this plethora of curriculum-setting and examining bodies belief the pious pronouncement made in the NEP, 1986 that “The National System of Education will be based on a national curricular frame-work which contains a common core along with other components that are flexible. The common core will include the history of India's freedom movement, the constitutional obligations and other content essential to nurture a national identity. These elements will cut across subject areas and will be designed to promote values such as India's common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy and secularism, equality of sexes, protection of the environment, removal of social barriers, observance of the small family norm and inculcation of the scientific temper. All educational programmes will be carried on in strict conformity with secular values” (Part III. 3.4). These objectives, largely normative, highly value-loaded, needed political will, mass awareness and above all a strong base of humanities and social sciences in the educational curriculum at different levels. It is imperative to mention here that both the policy documents-1968 and 1986, give emphasis to science and technology education and the reference to humanities is peripheral.

A brief comment on History teaching may be apt here. The controversies in regard to the books of humanities and social science produced recently by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) have evoked wide critism and especially the books on the subject of History have attracted greater national attention. In the U.K. the scholars are trying to free history from Anglocentric, Eurocentric and Christian-centric influences whereas in India an attempt was made to make history Hindu-centric. Not only History but other subjects in the humanities are soft targets of politically enthusiastic scholars and need careful treatment at the hands of experts, especially at the school level.

I may end this discussion on the place of humanities at the school level by quoting Lister once again that points to future policy concerns: “Basically, we must appreciate that the nineteenth-century classifications of knowledge are not always appropriate to our own day, and we must see the dangers of projecting those divisions of learning-necessary at a higher level of scholarship and research-down to the lower levels in the schools, where they often become artificial, obsolete, and harmful. We must realize the limitations of an educational system in which we tend to abstract out of life instead of contracting into it. We must acknowledge that the very liberty, flexibility, and variety of the educational structure have ensured that experiments should be limited and isolated, and have often encouraged tribalism in educational organizations and staunch conservatism in educational practice. We must postulate that we live in an industrial, scientific society: and that the aim of teaching the humanities in schools should be not only to develop people as individuals but also to help us to understand and improve the world in which we live” (ibid: 165. emphasis given by me).

In India it is important to recognize that Humanities is an important Aid and Tool for higher learning. Languages, Philosophy, Logic are important to comprehend theories and to conduct research. Hence the need to strengthen education of humanities not only at the school level but also at the university/college level of education is an urgent one.

In India the university/college education was patterned on the British model but with increased interaction with American Universities, it has deep imprints of U.S. higher education. But it may be recognized that both in the humanities and social sciences there are no effective links between the school educational system and higher educational enterprises in the colleges and universities. This link is further disjointed due to the liberalization and unfettered privatization in the education sector. The problems however are similar both at the school and higher levels of education.

Seriously reflecting on the division of knowledge into separate compartments and the skewed development of social sciences, Immanuel Wallerstein et al in the Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences observed that “The idea that we can reflect intelligently on the nature of humans, their relations with each other and with spiritual forces, and the social structures that they have created and within which they live is at least as old as recorded history. The received religious texts discuss these matters, as do the texts we call philosophical. And there is the oral wisdom that has been passed on through the ages, and often put into written form at one point or another. No doubt much of this wisdom was the result of culling inductively from the fullness of experienced human life in one or another part of the world over along period of time, even if the results were presented in the form of a revelation in a rational deduction from some inherent eternal truths …. what we today call social science is an heir to this wisdom. It is, however, a distant heir, and perhaps often an ungrateful and unacknowledge heir, for social science consciously defined it-self as the search for truths that went beyond such received or deduced wisdom. Social science is an enterprise of the modern world” (1996: 1). The industrial revolution, the rise of science and technology, the complexity of social and other social forces has resulted in this division of knowledge. The emergence of new occupations, new professions and new social concerns has further accentuated this artificial division.

While discussing the artificial division and consequent specialization (also polarization) in different ‘branches of knowledge’ at the school level of education we have dilated on its effects on the pupils and society. The Gulbenkian Commission Report, on higher level of education in social sciences, Open The Social Sciences averred: “By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the division of knowledge into two domains had lost the sense of these being ‘separate but equal’ spheres and took on the flavour of a hierarchy, at least in the eyes of natural scientists-knowledge that was certain (science) versus knowledge that was imagined, even imaginary (what was not science)” (ibid: 5). This is important to understand the debate which is still quite fierce in the domain of social sciences in relation to ‘empiricism’ which, the natural scientists believe, leads to the objective understanding of ‘reality'. For a proper understanding of this new perspective of ‘objectivity’ one should first understand that the division of knowledge that was divided into two worlds, the world of science and social science, sciences claiming definitive, objective, verifiable and universal truths and the other part being dubbed as speculative, subjective and stoical, was in itself subjective and vulgar. In other words, the resultant knowledge based on ‘physical facts’ constituted sciences and those based on ‘social facts’ were called social sciences. The Gulbenkian Commission Report further stated that “Thus, between 1850 and 1945, a series of disciplines came to be defined as constituting an arena of knowledge to which the name ‘social science’ was accorded. This was done by establishing in the principal universities first chairs, then departments offering courses leading to degrees in the discipline. The institutionalization of training was accompanied by the institutionalization of research: the creation of journals specialized in each of the disciplines; the construction of associations of scholars along disciplinary lines (first national, then international); the creation of library collections catalogued by disciplines” (ibid: 30). In spite of all this establishment at the university level, ‘science’ commanded more prestige in the changed social context and in the hierarchy ‘social sciences’ occupied a lower status. And the whole exercise of adopting the ‘ science-model’ of organizing social science disciplines, insisting on ‘objectivity’ in studying social phenomenon and persisting ‘scientism’ in the outlook of social scientists may be understood within this web of dichotomy and/or trichotomy of knowledge. But there also exists another dominant trend of non-empiricism (and anti-empiricism), in social science, which rejects the very idea of objectivity and certainty; for most scholars of this stream science is a pseudo knowledge. With fragmented knowledge through trichotomy we cannot understand the ‘whole reality’. Not only that we find the division of knowledge in two worlds but there grew umpteen disciplines in science and social science: “The creation of the multiple disciplines of social science was part of the general nineteenth-century attempt to secure and advance ‘objective’ knowledge about ‘reality’ on the basis of empirical findings (as opposed to ‘speculation'). The intent was to ‘learn’ the truth, not invent or intuit it” (ibid: 13). The non-empiricists have forcefully refuted the claims of sciences to be able to comprehend ‘reality’ and that too ‘objectively'. Even the staunch empiricists after realizing the limitations of empirical methods to understand the most volatile social phenomena revert to non-empirical approaches. The observations of Paul Abrecht in this regard may further clarify the situation: “I was raised in the tradition of a strictly empirical approach to the social science, with an emphasis upon fact-finding and upon neutrality with respect to human values. But the more I have reflected upon that approach, the more I have come to feel that a fundamental self-deception is involved in it. And, yet I have not seen a very effective challenge to those traditional approaches” (1968 op cit: 81). Without going into the nuance of this controversy I would only indicate its futility. For, more important, is to examine the very merit of the division of knowledge that has created innumerable problems in regard to the holistic comprehension of the phenomenon or total reality. The scenario has vastly changed from what it was in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. “Today, the discovery of common themes and approaches seems to be occurring on different bases than in the past. Natural scientists are talking of the arrow of time, which is what has always been central to the more humanistic wing of the social sciences. At the same time, literary scholars are talking of ‘theory'. However, hermeneutic such theorizing is and however hostile it proclaims itself to master narratives, theorizing is not what literary scholars used to do. No doubt, this is not the kind of theory that has always been central to the work of the more scientific wing of the social sciences…. What is clear is that the tripartite division between the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities is no longer as self-evident as it once seemed. It also seems that the social sciences are no longer a poor relative some how torn between the two polarized clans of the natural sciences and the humanities; rather they have become the locus of their potential reconciliation” (ibid: 68–69).

In the discussion on humanities we have dilated on the artificial specialities that need to be removed for the sake of a proper understanding of the social milieu. It holds equally true of social sciences. Not only is the polarization but also the fragmentation of knowledge into specializations that began, again in the nineteenth century, no more functional. About economics, which is considered more ‘scientific’ today, as compared to other sister social science disciplines, and to whom J.R. Sargent calls as “The Would-be, May-be Science” (1964: 130), was not a distinct discipline at one point of time; “however, only in the nineteenth century do we begin to find a discipline called economics, sometimes within the faculty of law, but often within the faculty (sometimes ex-faculty) of Philosophy” (Wellerstein et al cit: 17). And today, Economics itself has got divided into many ‘super-specialities-welfare economics, labour economics, micro-economics, macro-economics, business economics, managerial economics, etc., etc., with volumes of research and professionalized activities having little concern for human betterment. Super-specialities sometimes lead to vulgar conclusions. Radhkamal Mukherjee in ‘The Unity of the Social Sciences’ concluded: “Equally significant for the philosophy of social sciences is the cognate conception of the multi-dimensional character of social environment, relations and values. It is this philosophical nation, which can bring about a unity of the social sciences on the one hand, and the widening of treatment of the social universe with its metaphysical laws, postulates, norms and values on the other… Man is today divided in his mind, loyalties and ways of living because Psychology, Economics, Sociology, Political Sciences, Law, Ethics and Religion, all interpret human motives and actions in different ways and refuse to see man, society and the way of human living as integrated wholes …. In fact, the crisis in modern culture is largely the outcome of the segregation of different aspects of life, and disciplines concerned with them” (1960). Ramkrishna Mukherjee in this context only recently averred that by the expression “social science… we mean that it is one organised body of knowledge for understanding society and, therefore, there is one discipline…. This emphasis on primary relevance of interrelationship among the social science subjects is dictated to by the fact that their union-on the principal axis denoted by culture, economy and polity-is such that one of the three axial ingredients cannot operate without an equal operative power of the other two, unless we conceive of society to be fissiparous and moving toward oblivion. Therefore, the social science subjects may not be regarded as just systematically related (or for interdisciplinary explorations): instead, they should be regarded as related symbiotically, in order to appraise and mould social reality in a wholesome and durable manner…. But without unity of all these specialities on a generic axis denoting the mechanics of society - i.e. of its statics of being at points of time in the past and at the present moment, and of the dynamics of the same society in becoming (i.e. moving forward) in the future-social reality becomes obfuscated, diffused and, finally, distorted and destructive for the society in view” (2004). So, it is evident that instead of creating specialities, super specialities, there is a need to integrate, to get the holistic view of man, culture and society. So, perhaps, the emergent issues, to critically look into are the polarization of knowledge and artificial specialization of subjects/disciplines in our education system in the universities and colleges.

I have earlier referred to the hybrid nature of our education having the British traditional organization of our Universities and Amercian imprints on the education system. The lack of effective links between the school and university education, the permeation of ‘specializations’ in the domain of studies at the High School and Intermediate level (10+2 levels) and the general neglect of humanities and social science at the foundation stage of education have not only created a general crisis of sound academic socialization of pupils but also created a kind of vacuum thus damaging the goal of personality development. This may be attributed to the hybrid nature of our educational system and our incapacity to evolve an indigenous system of education suitable to our genus. The traditional Indian educational system was composite and holistic, with effective links between the different rungs. Even with the existing specializations (in social science and humanities), we need to seriously examine as to whether their continuation from standard 10 to the Master's levels has any relevance both in terms of enforcing a knowledge-base on the learners as well as on the understanding of social reality holistically. I plead for progressive enforcement of disciplinary knowledge from eighth standard to the twelfth, and at the Bachelor's level; one may major in specific subjects/disciplines (Economics, Sociology, Political Science, etc.) with related subjects as minor courses; or there may be introduced a five-year course in social science(s) after 10+2 level. However, at the Master's level, without an integrated social science course, with adequate grounding in theory, methodology, philosophy, logic and techniques of dissemination, objectives of higher research and goal of application of social sciences for social development may not be fully accomplished. I am conscious of the fact that it needs a major policy shift, and in the present context where the universities are autonomous and steeped in stagnation, the decision in this regard may be impossible. But a beginning may yet be made at the level of the University Grants Commission and the Association of Indian Universities.

Yet another issue facing social science is the way it is taught in schools as well as at institutions of higher learning. The manner in which social science is taught is not only monotonous but also irrelevant and non-innovative. Atal, as for back as 1976 observed that, “It is rather sad that social science teaching in universities and colleges (schools included in India) is, by and large, still carried out on traditional lines. The disciplinary boundaries are jealously guarded and the syllabi offered to the students are characterized by an annoying degree of constancy rather than by needed innovativeness…. Very little of India is introduced, and fewer if any, Indian references are cited. It is this feature which has been described as ‘academic colonialism’, roots of which are much deeper” (1976: 4). There are innumerable causes for this morass but it may be apt to briefly refer to a few of these factors so as to clinch the future policy options.

Let us take the issue of irrelevance of social science: the excellent centres of teaching and research in social sciences teach concepts, theories and other material which is hardly relevant to the Indian situation. I have been putting this question to fellow social scientists as to why very little knowledge based on the Indian context has been generated in social sciences. One cannot point to any theoretical construct by any Indian social scientist which may have been internationally established and accepted. C.T. Kurien has succinctly remarked that “Our knowledge about the problems of our own societies is largely bookish, and the books that we read are mainly from the West. We are rather like the beggar about whom Rabindranath Tagore wrote…. We are beggars, all of us-we sneak under many an academic table to gather the crumbs under them. And we mix these bits and make a hash which we pretend to relish, but one we can hardly digest” (1968: 17).

The new awakening in Asian societies has shaken the social scientist of hue. It is now realized that the values so thrusted by the Western social science-model have not only been dysfunctional but detrimental to local societies. A.C. Espiritu forcefully argued that “It is now becoming increasingly evident that the validity of such (Western) social sciences, whether in the realm of research, theory or of action policy, can no longer be accepted uncritically …. Trained to think in Western terms through the medium of Western languages, some are experiencing a reawakening to the reality of their situation …. Asian intellectuals are undergoing an agonizing period of soul-searching. Their system of values, developed through years of training in, and broad exposure to, Western philosophies, is being shattered by a realization that these values may not be suitable to the Asian environment” (1968: 35). Espiritu points to a very delicate aspect of ‘reawakening’ of the social scientists in most countries of Asia that creates distate for Western concepts, theories, methods and philosophies and consequently motivates them to search for alternatives that may be locally relevant, suitable and widely acceptable. In this search, the uncritical mind may turn to obscure, fundamental and obsolete concepts. For, after all, the Western concepts etc., have been accepted by the ‘uncritical indigenous intellectuals’, and the possibilities of a total about-turn on progress, modernity, development, democracy, secularization and concomitant processes of equality, social justice and fraternity, is quite possible. When we say Western, we refer to the ‘imperial’ and ‘Christian’ origin of social science so dominantly steeped in ‘Asian psyche'. The observations of Leeuwen may further clarify the situation: …. “social sciences, in their best manifestation, are products of the Western Christian secularization process, and therefore they must come into conflict with all traditional, ‘sacral’ structures of life …… I think this (Western bias) is one of our most difficult problems, because in a sense a kind of Western cultural imperialism inevitably creeps in through the ideological bias of social sciences, and we have not been very successful in discovering the exact nature of that bias. There is no doubt in my mind that secularization, in the special way in which it is usually defined in reference to the social sciences, is a good thing, and can be defended as such from the Christian perspective. But the real meaning of that fact in terms of Asian traditional and Asian social values seems to me to remain very much an open question” (1968: 78–79). I may only add that the Asian Christians are ‘Asians’ and the ‘Christian perspective’ of Asian Christians may not be homologous to Western Christians and thus the ‘Christian perspective’ as such may not be homogenous. This apart, Leeuwen's observations in regard to the creeping in of the Western cultural imperialism through the ‘ideological biases’ of social sciences, need immediate attention of the Asian intellectuals.

Parochialism of social science poses another potential threat to its claims to universalism; this threat is equally there in the sciences, but in social sciences it is more real and vociferously raised by many affected groups. The Gulbenkian Commission has rightly observed that “the late 1960's was initially, and perhaps most fundamentally, a challenge to its claim to represent universalism. The critics argue that it was in fact parochial. This critique was made by feminists challenging a masculinist orientation, by the various groups challenging Euro-centrism, and later by multiple other groups raising questions about still other biases that they saw as built into the premises of the social sciences” (op cit.: 53–54). Earlier in the context of History (and for that matter some other disciplines of Humanities also) we have talked about freeing these disciplines from Anglo-centrism, Euro-centrism and Christian-centrism; it is equally true for social sciences which need to be freed from the above shackles as also from gender biases predominantly male. In India, social sciences for long, neglected the poor, weaker, deprived, marginalized and socially and culturally ostracized groups from its serious studies, analyses, discussions and policy actions. To be universal, social sciences may have to change its perspective and orientation particularly in the Asian societies. The movement to free social sciences from biases in India has been heralded by Marxist, Dalit and Feminist scholars and the hopes of relevant changes are rightly expressed by social analysts.

I am inclined to specially mention the damage done to both humanities and social sciences by the modern process of privatization in the field of education, both at the levels of schools and universities. The higher educational institutions, in the wake of diminishing State financial support are opening courses in management, computer application, technology, bio-technology, emerging branches of engineering, multi-media and information sciences, e-commerce, business economics etc., which offer job opportunities to the graduates. In the process there is decreased enrolment not only in the humanities and social sciences but the traditional science disciplines too have suffered greatly. This has largely affected the educational complex and the quality of learners. The schools too are now concentrating more on science, commerce and on other applied education which has meant an increased infra-structure, highly increased fee and other costs for the students. The poor-class learner is thus pushed out of the ‘access circle’ of education. More and more youngsters are thrown out of the educational enterprises creating a host of other social problems in the country.

I am not keen to touch upon the aspects of training in greater details for the simple reason that I am not associated with it in any serious manner. However, I may briefly mention that both humanities and social sciences have a crucial role in training a variety of personnel needed by society. For research too in any discipline, ‘training’ constitutes an important component. Education, training and research are thus interconnected and complimentary.

Training may be essential to not only prepare persons for certain occupations, professions etc., but also for upgrading skills for better performance of people. There are established training institutions to train and mould civil admnistrators, police personnel, judicial officers, army and defence specialists etc. To name a few of these institutions: Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration, Mussoorie; Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Police Academy, Hyderabad; National Defence Academy, Pune, etc. are very important. There are other institutions which provide in-service training to working groups viz. Indian Institute of Public Administration; Administrative Staff College; National Institute of Social Defence; National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences; National Institute of Rural Development; National Institute of Banking, etc. etc. For the academia there are Academic Staff Colleges establish in some of the universities in the country to train university teachers. All these institutions impart training of some or the other sort, to train suitable persons who could do specific jobs skillfully and efficiently. But all the training institutions necessarily depend on humanities, especially languages, and inputs of social science, apart from the specialities related to their own job, occupation or profession. Economics, sociology, social work, criminology, anthropology are important components of most of the training modules. History, political science, public administration, law etc., find an important place in the curriculum of most important training curricula for administrators, police personnel and judicial officers.

The stakeholders in training of personnel are the State/Government, Employers in Industry, Trade and Commerce, Professional/Technical educational institutions e.g. Medical colleges, Engineering and Technology institutions, Agricultural colleges etc., and the Universities. In the Western professional/technical institutions both humanities and social sciences occupy a place of prominence in the training progammes. In India, the situation is not very encouraging. For this the humanists and social scientists, particularly those working in the universities, are to be blamed. First, they have not been able to recast their specialities not only to suit but also to become a necessity for any training basket. And, secondly, they have failed to spearhead a movement to get humanities and social science accepted as essential components of any training project and programme. For, we do not need socially ignorant, culturally deprivated and humanly deficient professionals; instead we need sufficiently aware, moderately humane, socially conscious, citizens as administrators and professionals; hence the importance of humanities and social sciences in training enterprises.

Researchers again are highly technical and advanced professional persons not only in academics but in other areas of societal operations like law and order, defence, industrial production, trade, commerce, banking etc. So far, in India research is perceived as an activity confined only to the academia. The diversified research operations in umpteen fields of human activity in fact, need rigourous training. We need to examine it seriously and reorient our research-training and operations accordingly.

Currently, research may be broadly categorized into: (i) University/College research which is carried on by individual scholars largely aiming at the university degrees. There is also project-research carried out by an individual/group of scholars in colleges and universities, but this area is still not very strong like the U.S., Canadian and other Western Universities. (ii) Research being conducted in Research Institutes-in the area of social sciences such researches are carried out in approximately twenty seven research institutions established/supported by the Indian Council of Social Research. (iii) Research being conducted in other establishments both governmental and voluntary. The purpose, objectives, goals and functions of these different types of social science research vary. But one thing which may be noticed is that not only the interest orientations of researchers working in these varied organisations widely differ but their mode of functioning too greatly vary. Secondly, the research outcomes of most researches in these sectors are hardly used by policy makers. The usage of research findings thus is too low. Also the dissemination of such researches even in the extension sector is negligible. And, it is certainly doubtful that most researches conducted due to the individual interests or interests of the funding agencies, or even due to the whims of researchers, have hardly any relevance to the people at large. Policy related and policy oriented researches are few and this is the crisis that is quite evident in social science research in India.

It may not be out of place to briefly mention that the researchers involved in projects and other commissioned research, though quite large in number, are employed at a lower rung or stratum at despicably low wages, lower self-esteem and least security of employment. Above all, the training in research in our institutions is at the lowest ebb; one or two theoretical papers in research methodology at the Bachelor's and/or Masters’ level(s) with some dose of statistical methods, does not prepare persons to handle sophisticated research projects in social science. Most university departments offer a course in ‘Dissertation’/‘Project Report writing’ having inputs on ‘literature review'. ‘field-work’ and data-collection. In most universities it has become a source of ‘amassing marks/grades’ instead of a real effort in gathering experience in nuances of research. The existing examination system does not afford an honest evaluation of these Reports, and lack of time and interest of the faculty in the universities and colleges does not, in the real sense, impart research training to the learners honestly, Philosophy, logic, social science theory and the ‘language of research reporting’ (which is different from literary writings), are hardly taught with any seriousness to the students. These un-prepared, un-baked and ill-trained persons handle ‘researches’ in research organizations of hue. It is another serious crises largely put under the carpet. The University Grants Commission and the Indian Council of Social Science Research had initiated a scheme to impart specialized training in research methodology in social science for University and Colleges teachers which is still in vogue, but its results are not satisfactory at all.

Partha Chatterjee in Social Science Research Capacity in South Asia observed that there are “Two themes (that) occur repeatedly in most discussions about social science today in South Asia. One is an apparently pervasive sense of crisis, an idea that the institutions and practices of social science research are on the point of irretrievable collapse. The other-and associated-theme is the idea that the crisis is the result of the precipitous decline of major institutions of social science research built mainly in the decades following the end of colonial rule. Those who put forth these arguments have many observations to present as symptoms of the decline or crisis and many examples to illustrate their case. A closer study of the facts, however, shows that the decline-crisis story does not hold for all regions of South Asia or for all social science disciplines” (2002: 3). However, in the context of India I would like to refer to certain facts given by Partha himself, that point to the crisis and decline of the apex body of social science research-ICSSR; Partha said that “One often-cited reason for the decline is the familiar bureaucratic phenomenon of the expansion and entrenchment of the administrative apparatus at the expense of the activities of the organization”. Quoting from ICSSR's Report of 1998, Partha said that “In 1996–97 … The ICSSR received a total grant of Rs. 96.9 million from the Government of India. Of this, Rs. 46.6 million i.e. 47.9% was distributed in the form of grants to the ICSSR research institutes. Only Rs. 4 million, i.e. just 4%, was given as research grants to scholars, while a whopping Rs. 22.5 million i.e.23%, was spent under various heads on the ICSSR's own administration” (ibid: 43). The situation has worsened now with an increased number of ICSSR institutions and highly increased costs of administrative functions. This indeed, is a crisis because ICSSR is one of the major institutions of research funding and its sickness and malfunctioning is reflected in other associated institutions and sectors related to social science.

Let us also examine the role of the University Grants Commission in this decline/crisis of social science research. U.G.C.'s allocation of funds for social sciences (also humanities) is awfully low as compared to sciences. Apart from this the recent steps taken by the U.G.C. and the policies persued by it, in the realm of higher education and research, have been detrimental for social sciences and humanities-education and research. The progressive decrease in the Commission's grants and opening up education to the private sector has boosted technical, management, computer and other similar courses that are earning propositions, at the cost of humanities, social sciences and even traditional branches of science. It is very unfortunate in a society like ours. The worst victim of this policy is ‘research’ of social sciences and the humanities.

In all policies of recruitment and promotion of teachers, enunciated by the U.G.C. instead of aiming at excellent teaching the dictum ‘publish or perish’ has been zealously followed. It has resulted in lesser interest by the faculty in teaching and more interest in the publication of so called research papers: It has proved problematic to both teaching and research. The norms of evaluation of excellence in teaching are difficult to determine as is true of evaluation of ‘excellent research'. In my considered opinion norms for evaluation of quality of teaching need to be evolved to improve ‘university teaching'.

Again, the U.G.C.'s oscillating stand on M.Phil. degrees, NET and Research degrees for recruitment of college/university teaching positions has proved a watershed particularly for the social science and humanities research standards.

A disturbing note on university research leading to doctoral degrees is given here both as a caution and a warning. In one of the old and established universities in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a Vice-Chancellor tried to raise the standards of research by enforcing certain rules and academic norms. On 6th November, 2004, the affiliated college teachers not only protested but virtually attacked him. He had tried to break the caucus and demolish the racket of research. Beware, this racket is there in a large number of universities. It is very much there in all faculties and all subjects but it is more pronounced in humanities and social sciences and needs to be demolished by well-meaning scholars.¹

A brief note on the social science research in the research institutes and organisations, other than the universities may be relevant here. T.S. Papola averred that “A large part of social science research today is going on in organisations established either exclusively or mainly for conducting research. Most of these institutions of social science research have come up during the last two decades in the wake of the somewhat restrictive atmosphere of the university system for promotion of research on the one hand, increasing realisation on the part of social scientists and policy makers for the increasing need for research on various aspects of economic development and social change taking place in the country on the other…. Of late, they seem to have scored over universities in terms of the research output and variety of research themes” (1983). Most of these research institutes were ‘ICSSR institutions'. Leaving aside a very few of these research institutes which are on a sound footing, most of these organizations today are not healthy both academically and functionally. They are in a real crisis. Partha says that “The single most important reason for the prevailing sense of crisis is the recent shortage in the assured government funding of established institutions of social science research…. The general climate of lack of expansion in higher education and greater opportunities in other professions as well as in higher education abroad has led to a critical shortage of qualified and motivated students wanting to take up a career in social science research…. The shortage of government funding has meant smaller faculties. In university departments, the result is an increased teaching load for faculty and less time for research. In the institutes, the way out has been to seek sponsored projects from outside agencies…. Institutes with an inadequate faculty size find it hard to undertake team research or indeed to create a viable academic community to foster new ideas” (op cit.: 45–48). The new climate in the country has forced the science related institutes and organizations to generate a big chunk of funds for their existence and operation by the researchers themselves. Here the industries and other funding agencies come forward to sponsor research projects. If this condition of generation of funds is applied to social science research institutions too, it may then perhaps be difficult for most of them to sustain themselves for long; and those who will still operate may do so with foreign and other dubious funding sources (including the funds from Brettonwood institutions), which will prove catastrophic for society.

The Indian Council of Social Science Research should not have either established or co-opted these institutions of research for, the U.G.C. another similar body, does not ‘establish colleges and/or universities’ in the country. It is a norm-setter and funding organization with specific roles of monitoring and evaluation. The ICSSR should have emulated it so as to release more funds for individual and specific project research. How would this crisis be reconciled is a moot question.

The research institutes, which did excellently well at one point of time are not only ailing from financial asphyxia but also suffering from proper academic leadership. It is very difficult to say with any certainty that the researches conducted in these institutes are either used by policy makers or get any respectable place in social science teaching in the universities. The dilemma today is that the faculty engaged in these institutions have either forgotton pedagogy or feel shy of associating themselves with the university curriculum. And, on the other hand, the universities do not want to either recognize them as research centres (except a few which have succeeded after long lobbying) or affiliate them as teaching institutions. This crisis has to be squarely faced sooner of later by these research institutes.²

In ‘Social Science: Quest for Relevant Research’, presented as a working/discussion paper for the ‘Dialogue on Social Science Research’ held in the G.B. Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad, in September 1996, I had raised certain ‘Structural Problems’. ‘Basic Issues’ and ‘Core Questions’ related to social science research. These issues, problems and core questions are repeated again and again in research related seminars and conferences including this ‘Hyderabad Meet’. These relate to the infancy of social sciences: limits of quantification; problems of measurement and analysis of qualitative data; issues related to valuefree/value neutral researches in social sciences; ethical questions associated with the social science researches; empiricism vs. nonempiricism, problems related to objectivity, verifiability, universality; theoretical/fundamental vs applied and action research; interdisciplinary approach and issues related to ideology in social science research. These issues are still relevant and the issue of relevance of social sciences research carried out in the country, is still alive and throbbing. I had remarked then, and I repeat, “it is a Rondo-a piece of music with a leading theme to which return is continually made” (Prasad: 1996).

In the end let me close with an asserting note that our efforts and crusade for formulation of a National Social Science Policy is directed also to take care of these problems facing social science education and research in the country.

References