CSDS Saga Part 2

Lawlessness in the Name of "Self-Governance" at CSDS
None Called to Account for Non Performance or Absenteeism

In Part 1 of this series, I had provided a glimpse of lawless regime operating at CSDS whereby there is no system of marking attendance, no limit on the amount of time faculty members can spend on varied assignments abroad, no need to declare the extra income earned from these parallel careers and remunerative consultancies with the likes of Ford Foundation. I had also described how the absence of academic audit of faculty members who are employed for full time research without any teaching load in effect means you can get away with doing practically nothing for years on end or using the institution for political pamphleteering instead of academic studies.

The founding fathers of CSDS had conceptualized this institution to be a haven of academic freedom where each faculty member was free to decide the content, quality and pace of his own work. However, even in the heydays of CSDS, this model threw up serious challenges. As per the version given by CSDS seniors, in the 1980's three senior colleagues,  namely Prof Ali Baquar, Prof Sudhir Kakkar and Prof Vijay Pillai had gotten into the habit of coming to CSDS just once a week on Wednesday for a couple of hours even though they held full time faculty positions at CSDS.  Therefore, they came to be sarcastically referred to as the Budhwari group.

They were repeatedly reminded that CSDS required their regular presence as faculty members in order for CSDS to provide a vibrant collegiate for scholars. Unfortunately, Baquar, Kakkar and Pillai refused to mend their ways.  This tussle went on for 2-3 years.  Finally, as a measure of enforcing discipline, marking daily attendance was made mandatory to drive home the point that regular presence at the Centre was an essential requirement of the job.  Before that there was no system of marking attendance or fixed working hours at CSDS.  Since Baquar, Kakkar and Pillai chose not to abide by the newly introduced attendance system, they were told to either accept the minimal discipline required of a faculty member or quit.  To quote one of the seniors, "We told them even if you come and write love letters while at CSDS, we have no problem.  But you can't escape showing up regularly on the plea that you work better at home." As the conflict over this issue mounted, Baquar and Kakkar resigned in 1990 and Vijay Pillai who tried improving his attendance for a couple of years but failed to keep up, also resigned in 1994. In short, even a highly acclaimed luminary like Sudhir Kakar, whose academic output excelled that of most others was made to quit the Centre since he was unwilling to show up regularly. (It is likely that these professors have a totally different version of this conflict. Prof Sudhir Kakkar has in fact given his version in his recent autobiographical book. But I am only using the version handed down to us by seniors at CSDS)

But today, even outright wastrels are not called to account. This is in  part due to the fact that  the system of marking attendance was discontinued after securing the resignations of the above mentioned three faculty members in the hope that the lesson had been driven home. At the same time, even the barest minimum academic audit was not introduced to counterbalance the absence of attendance rules.

Not surprisingly, as the founding members of CSDS began retiring one by one and new faculty members took over the institution, the culture of “self governance” and “self motivation” gave way to a situation of lawlessness and total disregard for disciplinary norms expected of publicly funded institutions.  Today there is no effective system at the CSDS for marking attendance or keeping honest account of leaves taken.  Faculty members are in the habit of absenting themselves for days, weeks and even months at length without applying for leave or even informing the Centre.  There is no requirement for an 8 hour work day, 5 days a week as in all public funded educational institutions.  The members come and go as they please with no record of their comings and goings.  For the last many years I was among the few who repeatedly raised this matter in faculty meetings and insisted that there be a proper attendance system, but to no avail. 

The Ruling Coterie does not want any restrictions that will apply to them as well. A number of faculty members spend more time in jet setting abroad than they do working at CSDS.  Even when in Delhi, their attendance at the Centre is highly erratic.  During the summer months in particular, faculty attendance CSDS becomes even more irregular and whimsical.  The place is as good as deserted but for the presence of administrative staff.

There is also a “class” angle to this culture of aiyyashi. Members of the the administrative staff as well as Class IV employees are all expected to mark attendance and observe proper rules and procedures for taking leave. It is only the higher species that constitute the academic faculty who are exempt from observing norms of discipline. 

This casual attitude has persisted despite the fact that in 2011, the Board of Governors managed to adopt formal "Service Rules" for the faculty despite much resistance and decade long attempts at filibustering and delay tactics by the Ruling Coterie of the faculty. 

Norms of Discipline Never Invoked Even against Habitual Absentees

As per Rule 41 of “Service Rules” nominally adopted by the Board of Governors, the unsatisfactory work performance, contravention of rules and regulations of the Centre, unethical professional conduct, amongst others, would invite disciplinary action, which ultimately may lead to a series of penalties including suspension and dismissal. As per Rule 44, the Authority competent to impose such penalty is the Director in case of all administrative posts and support staff posts and, for all faculty posts, the Board of Governors on the recommendations of a Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Board.

However, ever since the Current Ruling Coterie came to dominate, no one has been called to account or subjected to disciplinary action.  This includes faculty members who absent themselves for indefinite periods and do not do a spot of work or are performing far below par.

Here is a particularly outrageous example, which provides a glimpse into the farce of “self-governance” at CSDS.  One of the older faculty members (let’s call him Dr S) has the habit of disappearing for weeks, and even months on end without informing anybody.  For years he has not published anything whatsoever.  Even when he comes for the annual faculty retreats, he never submits anything resembling a paper for presentation.  Apart from academic non performance, his personal conduct is often bizarre.  He once assaulted senior colleague Ashis Nandy and broke the table-top glass while attempting to fling the table at Nandy in the Director’s room. All this happened without any provocation whatsoever.

I was among the few who pushed the then Director to initiate disciplinary action in this case.  Consequently, a special committee consisting of three faculty members, headed by me, was set up to recommend the course of action.  I was insistent that the situation called for firm action, especially since the person concerned had begun accusing various members of the Centre’s faculty of trying to eliminate him through serial bomb blasts.  Needless to say the allegations were product of either a seriously disturbed or a devious mind.  The Committee invited Dr S for a discussion on February 3, 2011.  He neither turned up nor acknowledged the letter asking him to show cause.

I took the trouble to get in touch with his family in Punjab.  They too complained about his irresponsible and odd behaviour.  He had not only unilaterally abandoned his wife and child but had cut off all ties even with his parents. In fact, the family were very insistent that CSDS should help the wife and son of Dr S to get a maintenance allowance from his salary. Realising that Dr S may have serious problems, I consulted a top-notch psychiatrist.  The succession of psychotic emails sent by Dr S to faculty members convinced the psychiatrist that this case required medical attention.

I kept insisting that a legal notice be served on him for frequent and long disappearances without informing anyone.  Even when he comes to the Centre, he behaves most erratically, at times even menacingly.  The Director asked me to organize a consultation with an appropriate lawyer in this regard.  I expeditiously arranged for an advocate to come and meet the Director and other committee members.  On examining the facts of the case, the advocate opined that a strong case could be built against Dr S whose conduct merited strong disciplinary action.  Ironically, even though I had led the Committee, done all the spade work, it was Shail Mayaram who arbitrarily took on the task of writing the Report on behalf of the Committee. It was no surprise that the Recommendations she came up with were altogether toothless and wishy washy, suggesting that Dr S be advised to go on medical leave! When I protested, I was told we must move step by step and not be hasty in dealing with a colleague.

Needless to say, no one took the trouble to talk to Dr S nor was he persuaded to go on leave. He was left to rot in lonely splendour and the matter was shoved under the carpet. Other than occasional references to the case of Dr S in faculty meetings, the Director did not take any action whatsoever. But since a couple of Board members were aware of the seriousness of the problem, they kept raising the issue.  Three years after the above-mentioned incidents, the Minutes of B.O.G. meeting held on April 19, 2014 note as follows:

3. (iv) The Board observed the continuous non-participation of a faculty member in the Centre’s activities including routine faculty meeting.  The Board suggested that the Director should write to the concerned faculty member asking for explanation.  It was also suggested that the Director should discuss the issue with the faculty and report back to the Board in its next meeting.

As always, nothing much came of it.  Thus, the Minutes of B.O.G. meeting held on September 20, 2014 record as follows:

The issue of non-cooperation and non-participation by one faculty member in Centre’s activities since last 3-4 years came up for discussion.  It was noted by the members that one particular faculty member did not submit the annual academic report to the Director during last four-five years.  The former Director reported to the Board describing all the efforts he made during his tenure as Director to make this faculty member participate in Centre’s activities.  He reported that he had requested the concerned person several times to meet the Director to discuss the issue and to sort out the problems if any.  But the person never responded to any of his messages and he continued to be non-participant in the Centre’s activities and was absent even from the faculty meetings.

The Board members expressed their concern on this complete non-cooperation by one faculty member, which could create moral hazard problems in the institute and emphasized on the need for necessary steps to be taken on this issue.  The Board members authorized the Director to take disciplinary action in conformity with established due process.

This was actually an understatement because Dr S has been behaving in the same manner for very long years, not just since 2011.  No serious efforts were made by the Director to establish any communication with him except serving him a show cause notice, which he did not even bother to respond to.  And yet no disciplinary action was initiated for his frequent and prolonged absenteeism and non-performance.  The Minutes of May 2, 2015 record as follows:

The Board noted that the non-cooperative faculty member, XYZ responded much better than earlier to the show cause notice served to him and had at least started attending some of the Centre’s activities and faculty meetings.  The Board suggested that if the Faculty feels that further action is needed to improve his academic performance they can do so after following due process.

It was also suggested that the Centre should formulate a Human Resource (H.R.) Policy/regulatory process to ascertain the performance of the faculty and if the Faculty feels this can be placed before the Board for its advice.

It is clear from the above that the Director felt it was enough if Dr S shows up at CSDS once in a while without doing anything whatsoever.  But even the pretence of that mild improvement did not last for long.  This is why the Minutes of September 13 2015 again take cognisance of Dr S case but without arriving at any decision.  To quote:

The Board suggested that [Dr S’s] case should be dealt separately from the evaluation process for the Faculty discussed earlier in the meeting.  The Faculty should give considerable consideration to this matter and suggest an appropriate solution.

This indifference towards Dr S’s bizarre behaviour (which could even be a put on act to escape accountability) and the reluctance of the CSDS Ruling Coterie to take appropriate action is not due to any fondness for the man.  In fact, barring me, no one even bothers to talk to him or even acknowledge his presence.  The unwillingness of CSDS to call Dr S to account is due to the following reasons:

1. In case he is suspended or have his services terminated for absenting himself without leave, Dr S could easily go and challenge the action in Court by alleging that the charges of disappearance or erratic attendance are false since the CSDS does not maintain any record of attendance.  CSDS would thus find it impossible to prove that Dr S is unique in acting in an irresponsible manner.  Moreover, once the matter reaches the Court, the Court could well ask CSDS why they have failed to observe elementary discipline expected of public funded institutions.  The sad truth is that while Dr S may represent an extreme case of indiscipline but the others have also acted whimsically in matters of attendance and academic output without inviting any adverse consequences;
2. Even with regard to academic non-performance, if the CSDS was dragged to court, Dr S could well argue in his defence that there is no system in place for academic audit at CSDS.  No one has ever been issued show cause notice on account of non-performance.  Therefore, how could he be singled out for disciplinary action?

In short, CSDS is afraid to take action even against those whose conduct has been outrageous even by outrageously liberal standards in place at CSDS lest it open up the well covered can of worms forcing the government to intervene and establish due norms. [1]

Needless to say, apart from our ideological differences, I did not endear myself to the Ruling Coterie by insisting that regular attendance system be introduced along with proper independent academic audit of faculty members as well as honest declaration of extra income at the cost of CSDS.  That is why I was systematically excluded from Committees for drafting “Rules & Regulations” for CSDS faculty. (Of this more in a later section)

See: CSDS Saga Part 1 & also See: CSDS: A Citadel of "Academic Freedom" Unmasked"

                                                                                                                                      ...To be continued

FOOTNOTE

---

[1] My Personal Track Record: Even though I was powerless in changing the work culture at CSDS, I made sure I didn’t get sucked into the aiyyashi prevalent at CSDS.  Despite my active involvement in numerous social causes and public engagements, I invariably informed the office whenever I had to attend some meeting or deliver lectures or even take casual leave.  Moreover, I along with my team of research assistants and interns worked on all Saturdays as well as on many holidays including Gandhi Jayanti – when the Centre is officially closed.  My personal office at CSDS has maintained an attendance register even for interns and volunteers, not just for regular research assistants. Since I am of the view that the Government of India has been excessively generous in announcing holidays to placate different vote banks, I allow my assistants and myself far fewer holidays than officially sanctioned by the Government of India.  

As a matter of fact, in 2001, I moved from my apartment in South Delhi to a rented accommodation in Civil Lines in order to be close to CSDS so that like many others I don’t get into the habit of using distance and traffic jams as an excuse for absenting myself from CSDS.   Even though I have has been accepting invitations for lectures outside Delhi and even abroad, I have never disappeared for weeks, or months on end for foreign assignments as several other faculty members are prone to do. 

My stringent work ethic is evident from the fact that since 2004, when LTC provision was first introduced at CSDS, I have availed of my LTC allowance only once in 2014, that too for medical treatment. (LTC can be availed for travel anywhere within India only if one takes leave for ten days at a stretch). 

Even though the working hours at CSDS are 9.30 am to 6.00 pm which are observed only in breach by most of the CSDS faculty, but it was fairly common for me and my team of interns/assistants to work till 9 or 10 pm, sometimes even till midnight. Needless to say, at CSDS, hard work does not win you any credit. All that matters is your ability to ingratiate yourself to the Ruling Coterie by remaining unquestioningly loyal to their pet hatreds and partisan agendas or by your genius in wooing foreign funding agencies and bringing in loads of foreign grants.

Its only in the last year and a half that I reduced the number of hours I spent at CSDS partly because of health problems but in large part due to the fact that being at CSDS had become more and more stressful on account of the outright hostility I faced after my study of Modi's tenure as CM of Gujarat which culminated in the book, Modi, Muslims and Media published in 2014. After that I was treated as a virtual pariah and subjected to all manners of attack and vilification.