It’s generally not my intention to interfere in the lives and works of others. I say “others” because I don’t have the rare privilege of studying in a Central University. My own university does, but the rules are different and the ongoing #OccupyUGC movement means nothing for me. So in a way you could say that I feel discriminated against – a movement by protesters involves something that does not pertain to me. So should I demand extension of the fellowship to other universities? Nope, I want them all scrapped and replaced by something based on meritocracy.
Why? To answer why, let’s demolish the arguments put forth by those encroaching upon and defacing the UGC premises.
- Research is a Right – Yeah right, and so perhaps, is MBA. Both are higher degrees, pursued by people for career goals. Both are not included in the minimum qualifications for the lowest tier of employment. Both are undertaken in so-called Grad Schools. But then MBA is not a right. Anyone who claims that the government should be paying people to do MBA instead of working their arses off in their job will be laughed out of the park. Then why research?
Research is not part of one’s fundamental education. Let’s face it, fundamental education ends in Class XII, higher education ends when one passes out of one’s MA/MTech. No job requires a higher qualification than this, ergo, these are the limit to which the definition of “required” education can be extended. The welfare state is expected to provide people with such required education, not every degree you could possibly hope to achieve in order to go from one rank to another. Sorry, the welfare state is not your cash-rich father. So if you must pursue research, it must be taken as a form of education that is limited to you and will benefit you and you alone. It is a privilege, and the welfare state has no need to finance privileges.At least, not privileges of all who want to enjoy that privilege.
2. Research enhances our knowledge – True, if it is fields and on topics which improve human life. Not every research topic deserves the same respect, simply because some are so esoteric that they would never be of any use whatsoever except to the handful who are interested in it for the sake of interest. For the vast remainder, such research will yield no dividends at all. The taxes they paid to finance such research will not produce anything they can use or even understand. In a way, it is the transfer of public money from the public arena to a privileged arena where journals are so priced as to be inaccessible, JSTOR access is limited to a few and seminars become fiefs of intellectuals who theorize everything to the point where nothing is relatable to reality.
3. Research is a productive social activity – NOT! BY virtue of producing some pieces of text that no one will read or find useful, research cannot claim to provide itself justification as a productive social activity. For instance, if you wrote a piece of text and published it in some journal. Less than 10% of the readership of the journal will read it. On the other hand, if you are a teacher, you would be disseminating basic facts to at least 50 students per year. At that rate, your contribution is far higher than anything a researcher can achieve.
Problems are exacerbated by the fact that may who are engaged in research are fundamentally unemployable in the education sector or are disinclined to take up productive employment. You can teach 3 days a week as a Guest Lecturer and get the money paid by the non-NET fellowship to MPhil students. I myself have done just that and am so much the better for it because of the experience and the sense of self-respect it generates. People cooped up in libraries will never gain the experience and the widening of their mindsets that comes from teaching. Hence, in every seminar on teaching history (my subject), you find these researchers saying that we need to make the syllabus more “sophisticated” and provide a more theoretical basis for students to understand topics. Try doing these in a college where the majority of students have little access to your costly publications and still less to the seminars where your high-flying opinions are voiced. Try getting them to pass their exams – the basic graduation exams – based on your Foucault and Derrida. Let’s see where your arrogance resides then.
4. What teachers “teach” is based on research – Absolutely! If no research takes place, the discipline will fossilize and die out. In fact, what we need is more research in more diverse streams to keep the subject relevant. The problem is that a lot of research seems to handle subjects that do not fall into this criteria – they rehash the same arguments again and again and/or work on topics so theoretical that even someone with a MA degree (me!) has trouble understanding them.
So while Sumit Sarkar’s work on Swadeshi is a great piece of research, some of the post-modern works coming out today are utter trash. In fact, as I understand Sumit Sarkar thinks them to be trash too. There’s just no point funding everyone who says he/she is doing research because, let’s face it, all research is not equal and not relevant.
5. Fellowships help underprivileged communities and women – Uh yeah, but so does employment. If you can employ yourself, you can be financially independent and at the same time, enjoy the privilege of research in your spare time. This applies to all – men, women, underprivileged, overprivileged, etc. So why must you pursue fellowships? Because you don’t want to work. And if you don’t want to work, you are not a productive member of society. Pressure will increase on you to do something productive – get a different job, get married, etc. That’s only logical isn’t it? Ending these fellowships, seen from this perspective, will help rationalize our workforce by pruning those who wish to get money without working.
So my solution ?
Expand the number of NET fellowships so larger number of people can avail these. If needed, create two tiers of fellowships, one for those clearing JRF and another for those getting LS only. NET is a national exam and it pits all – regardless of whether you’re working on history of caterpillar procreation or the Partition – against others to test their mettle. It is deeply flawed, that cannot be denied. But fixing the exam is better than doing away with meritocracy altogether.
Beyond NET, there could be situations where those who clear various state SET are given a certain fellowship as well by the UGC. This would substantially broaden the scope of fellowships but keep them linked to a verifiable criterion. Of course, those clearing both NET and SET would be allowed to get only one.
Finally, there could be a limited number of fellowships for those who don’t have any of these. A merit panel would decide who gets these. In fact, I believe the UGC is going in for just such a move. In itself though, it may not be enough and would need to be coupled with the points mentioned above.
Final Thoughts
Research is a privilege, not a right. The extent of its social productivity is a direct function of its applicability to society and its ability to broaden society’s understanding of various topics relevant to it. There should be secular criteria to decide which fits these and which does not. NET/ SET is one criterion, expert panel is another. Those deemed unworthy by both these criteria can pursue their privilege, but at their own cost. Alternatively, they can take up employment and pay their way through research the way many MBA students do. In the light of these, UGC’s moves are to be welcomed by civil society at large, even if they are unpalatable to some who wish to hide behind piles of books instead of doing something productive in society.