How Left Citadel CSDS Sabotages Rules of Discipline
53-year-old Public Funded Organizations Still Doesn’t Have Clear Rules for Its Administration
The founding fathers of Delhi based CSDS ( Centre for the Study of Developing Societies) at
least had the self confidence to openly admit to the world that they did not
believe in externally imposed discipline and that they envisaged CSDS to be a
place where people had freedom to choose not only their working schedules work
but also be free to determine the content, quantity and quality of their
academic output.
However, once the old generation
began to retire or pass away, the old order had to give way to new. Unfortunately,
most of the new recruits saw the job at CSDS as just another job—with just one big
advantage—the institution has virtually no rules to enforce discipline of
attendance or academic output. As the old freedoms began to be widely misused,
the seniors or “Uncles”-- as they began to be derisively referred to by the
younger entrants—began cautious attempts to make the CSDS faculty accept some
minimal rules for ensuring basic discipline and accountability. Since three of
the “Uncles” became members of the Governing Board after retirement, they began
to push the faculty through Board meetings. Coincidentally, this process of
making and sabotaging rules began in 2001, the year I returned to CSDS as full
professor after two long stints in 1990’s as Visiting Fellow.
At the insistence of the Board of Governors, in 2001 the first
ever Committee of the faculty was appointed to draft the Rules and Regulations for
the Centre. The following account based on the Minutes of various faculty and
Board meetings over the years reveals how through a clever sleight of hand,
obfuscation and delay tactics, the Ruling Coterie of CSDS managed to evade
accepting not just those rules and regulations which are applicable to all
public funded educational institutions but even the exceedingly generous rules
proposed/adopted by the B.O.G.
To start with they made a pretense of taking on the exercise
seriously. The Minutes of a meeting held on 26th July 2002 record as follows:
“On behalf of the
Service Rules Committee, Aditya Nigam, its convenor gave a brief idea of the
progress of the Committee’s work during two rounds of its meetings held so
far. The Committee expressed confidence
that a draft of service rules will be ready for circulation among the Faculty
by 20 September 2002 for wider discussion and finalization.”
The
Minutes of meeting held on 29th July 2002 record as follows:-
“The Director urging the
need to observe settled procedures for availing leave, volunteered to circulate
leave entitlement and rules. Further to
facilitate the writing of periodic academic reports, it was agreed that the
individual Faculty member would fill-in a form (being prepared by Aditya Nigam)
indicating his or her Academic activities, and bring it during the monthly
meetings.”
Needless
to say the above-mentioned “agreement” was never implemented. The issue of
rules came up again in the Minutes of meeting held on 13th
September 2002:-
“It was decided that the
Committee for Rules and Regulations should circulate a draft by 25th
September in order that it can be taken up for discussion on 30th
September.”
The
Minutes of meeting held on 4th
July 2003 record as follows:-
“The Director emphasized
that even though we are attempting to formulate rules and norms to serve as
guidelines for the effective functioning of the Centre during its phase of
expansion, we need to ensure that we do not end up becoming too formal in our
functioning. The Centre has so far
functioned in an informal manner as a collective and we should try to retain
the positive spirit behind this manner of functioning.”
The above is an open
admission that CSDS lacks formal, transparent rules and therefore it has been
functioning as per the whims and fancies of the Coterie that has arrogated to
itself the right to decide and speak on behalf of the institution. The Minutes
of meeting held on 25th July 2003 make yet another
admission:-
“…Even though faculty
members were allowed flexible work timings, it was reiterated that care should
be taken that members are present at the Centre for regular hours or they take
leave or inform the Administrative Officer in the event of an absence.”
The
wording in the abovementioned is noteworthy.
It admits that there is no requirement for prior leave
applications. The Director has repeated
time and again that a mere SMS to the Administrative Officer is considered more
than adequate. But even this little
courtesy is not observed as a matter of regular practice. Appeals to inform the A.O. were rarely heeded
because they were not backed by any disciplinary action against habitual
absentees. The Minutes of a meeting held
on 26th September 2003 again note the following decision
regarding “Rules”:-
“The Rules and Regulations of the Centre
need to be finalized. It was agreed that
the draft document should be circulated amongst faculty members and a legal
expert for comments before a final deliberation on it.”
All
this drama was being enacted because the Board of Governors (B.O.G.) began to
insist that some minimal discipline be observed. The Minutes of meeting held on 28th
May 2004 state the following:-
“The faculty to meet on
Sunday 7 August 2004 to finalize the
Rules and Regulations of the Centre on the basis of the draft prepared
by the rules and regulations committee….”
To the
best of my knowledge the proposed meeting of 7th August 2004 never
took place and the callousness regarding the lack of Rules and Regulations
continued to plague the Centre. Frustrated
at the willful inaction by the Director and CSDS faculty in formulating required
Rules and Regulations, on 29th August 2005 the Board of Governors (B.O.G.)
of CSDS appointed a two member Committee for that purpose. The Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty
held on 29th August 2005 record this decision:-
“Committee consisting of
Yogendra Yadav and Ghanshyam Shah constituted by the Board to look into the
Centre’s Rules and Regulations started its work. Yogendra Yadav sought suggestions from the
faculty in this regard”.
However,
the inclusion of faculty member Yogendra Yadav in the “Rules and Regulation
Committee” set Aditya Nigam on a permanent collision course with Yogendra Yadav
because the two represented rival power groups at CSDS. This resulted in a highly polarized situation
and regular tug of wars until such time as Yogendra Yadav went on indefinite
leave from the Centre in 2013, resulting in total monopoly of the current
Ruling Coterie.
Though
Yogendra Yadav and Ghanshyam Shah managed to prepare the Rules and Regulations
within a year, the other domineering members ensured that enforcement of these Rules
was sabotaged. Therefore, the issue kept
cropping up in faculty meetings as and when the Board of Governors asked for an
update on the issue. To quote the
Minutes of the Board Meeting held on 31 October 2005:-
“Yogendra Yadav gave a
brief on the CSDS Rules and Regulations Committee's work. It was agreed that Yogendra Yadav, Aditya
Nigam and the Director meet to discuss and formulate provisions concerning such
matters as Grievance mechanism, composition and functions of Faculty
Committees, professional consultations/fees received by the faculty, duty
leave, sabbatical etc.. It was suggested that someone with professional legal
competence be entrusted the task of drawing a final draft free of technical
consistencies, ambiguities etc. The Faculty should then discuss the draft
before presenting it again to the Board for approval.”
From
the Minutes of the Faculty Meeting held on 29 December 2005:-
Director
briefed the members about the following decisions/suggestions discussed in the
Board meeting of 26th November:
a)
Final draft of the CSDS Rules and Regulations, CSDS designations and Research
Council be presented to the board at its next meeting.
b)
To facilitate the finalization of all these three draft documents a committee
consisting of Aditya Nigam, Ravi Sundaram and Rajeev Bhargava is constituted.
With Aditya Nigam again back in the saddle, the
process of derailing finalization of rules and regulations began all over again
and the
farce of discussing it sporadically in faculty meetings continued for years on
end. The issue kept cropping up in
Board meetings only to be cast into oblivion the moment the pressure was let
off.
For reasons of brevity, I am skipping the
intervening years and would like to bring attention to the Minutes of Faculty
Meeting dated 7th April 2011 which, inter alia, record as
follows on this issue:-
“The Director informed the faculty that this
emergency meeting has been convened for discussing the CSDS rules as it should
be sent to the Board members very soon….”
“….The director wants a
separate faculty meeting to discuss issues such as institutional presence,
self-evaluation by the faculty on their work and whether to consider political
and public work of the faculty as academic work.”
This
clearly indicates that the Board of Governors were getting impatient with the
faculty’s determined resistance to accepting even minimal rules. Hence the need for an “emergency” meeting
under pressure from the B.O.G. It also
affirms that the matter of “institutional presence” had not been sorted out nor
any method of academic evaluation put in place. In short, everybody continued
to get away with doing what they pleased, including those who do pretty much
nothing.
Further,
the Minutes of Faculty Meeting held on 3rd February 2011, again,
recorded the casual attitude of faculty members towards attendance
and the habit of absenting themselves without applying for leave:
“Director also pointed out
that sometimes faculty members are absent from centre without any information.
When any member is availing leave/on official duty should inform the
administrative officer. The information
should be available with the office that for which reason they are not
available.”
But it
is a gross understatement to say that the faculty members absented only “sometimes”
without informing the Centre. As a
matter of fact, they did it much too often. This is an open admission that faculty members
of CSDS remain absent without the courtesy of informing the Centre much less
seek prior permission for leave. I was among the few who repeatedly insisted
that a proper attendance system be introduced as in all public funded
institutions. But the proposal was
not only shot down with disdain but also not recorded in the Minutes. The casual attitude of CSDS Directors in this
regard is evident from the fact that no one was ever issued a show-cause notice
in this regard, no matter how infrequently they showed up at CSDS nor when they
disappeared for long periods without informing the Centre.
It is
pertinent to mention here that the Minutes of B.O.G. dated November 28, 2000
had recorded that “Total Casual Leave granted shall not exceed eight days
in an academic year.” It further states,
“Earned leave [which incidentally is encashable on retirement] shall not
accumulate beyond 300 days. However,
these categories appear ridiculously redundant in the situation prevailing at
CSDS where there is no system of marking attendance. When one is free to absent oneself for days,
weeks or months on end without applying for leave, categories such as “casual
leave” and “earned leave” have no meaning. Thus, the Minutes of 14th December 2010 again
record the following:
“The director expressed
concern about the faculty absence in the CSDS events.”
If faculty members do not bother to even attend
special events of the Centre, one can well imagine their lack of seriousness
about daily attendance.
The
Minutes of Faculty Meeting held on 21 April 2011 again record the
absence of any method or criteria for self evaluation or evaluation by peer
group or seniors in the following words:
“The Faculty suggested that
there should be clear guidelines for reviewing the applications for the
positions from outsiders and from existing faculty applying for a higher
position. There should be some kind of
procedures. There are lot of doubts in
the minds of all faculty members. Who
makes the decision on the process? Is
the Faculty Standing Committee can judge the applicants? What is the best
process? Can the faculty member judge the other faculty member? Earlier there
was a peer review process, but it was not successful. What should be the demands for the new members,
for the second level positions and what for the Professor’s level? What is really expected by the Centre as a
whole? What kinds of work are considered
academic? How the ongoing academic
activities be evaluated? There should be
clarity on selection criteria which should be publicized.”(Quoted verbatim,
grammatical mistakes in the original)
This
amounts to an open admission that there are no established norms or procedures
for assessment of the work being done at the Centre. The ICSSR has also been exceedingly lax in
this matter. The last time it made a
pretense of academic audit was in 2005.
The non-seriousness of the exercise can be gauged from the fact that I
don’t even remember it took place because no one really checked what each of us
had been doing in preceding years. Once
you are “in” you can go upto your retirement without doing very much or even
nothing at all. That is why even faculty
members have “doubts” about what is going on at CSDS. If so much is being admitted in the Minutes of
faculty meetings – where the actual offenders have a strong voice, one can well
imagine the actual state of affairs.
Ultimately,
after more than ten years of procrastination in November 2011, the Governing Board insisted on finalizing a set of
“Rules & Regulations”. These
include the following list of reasons for which leave can be granted:
a) Casual leave; b) Compensatory leave; c) Earned leave; d)
Academic leave;
e) Extraordinary leave; f) Parental leave; g) Child care
leave; h) Medical leave
i) Leave not due
It is
noteworthy that while listing various heads under which leave can be availed,
the B.O.G. adopted “Rules” do not set any norm regarding the minimum number
of days in a year that a faculty member must be present at the CSDS. Therefore, there is official sanction to faculty
members remaining absent from the institution for indefinite periods on one
pretext or the other. Even though
the amount of leave granted under these rules errs on the side of generosity, yet
they have not been observed with any modicum of seriousness. It needs reiterating that, in the absence
of any system of marking attendance, there is no way of affirming how many days
in a year faculty members actually show up at CSDS. Nor has the 8 hour working day specified in
the “Rules” approved by the Board ever been enforced at CSDS. Not surprisingly, faculty members come as and
when they please, for as few or long hours as they please.
Most
revealing of all, as per Service Rules, the prescribed upper limit of leave
provided under the above mentioned categories can be extended by the director
in consultation with the Faculty Standing Committee leaving ground for
arbitrary favours to select few and sanctifying prolonged absenteeism with
official approval.
Ironically,
even though there is no system of recording how many days in a year and for how
many hours in a day a particular faculty member attends the Centre, yet CSDS
follows the leave encashment provision applicable in Central and other
universities. Thus, even those who attend
the Centre only fitfully can get lakhs of rupees at the time of retirement by
way of leave encashment for up to 300 days simply because there is no system to
check how often a faculty member absented without applying for leave.
The Fate of ‘8 Hours a Day, Five Day Working Week’ Rule
The
most important part of this document is Rule 50(ii). It reads: “All members of the faculty are
expected in the usual course to be present on all working days except or
otherwise with prior intimation to the Director.” This mandates a five-day
working week, unless formal leave has been taken. This had to be sabotaged at
all costs because CSDS Coterie has come to believe that such demands can only
be made of lower species—namely the Class IV, Class III and admin staff—the
modern day Shudras, and not the high and mighty intellectuals that constitute
the faculty.
In
fact, it has become a common practice for even visiting scholars or short-term
fellowship holders not to show up for weeks or months on end without informing
the CSDS. Similarly, new faculty
members begin to adopt the same pattern of irresponsibility when they realize
that there is no system for keeping a check on them. Even those who are given
PhD or other fellowships by the CSDS do not have any attendance requirement.
Nor is any record maintained of the work they actually deliver.
Not
surprisingly the Minutes of Faculty meeting of April 25, 2015 once again
record:
The Director expressed his concern
about non-participation of many visiting faculty in the academic activities of
CSDS. He also expressed his concern
about the thin presence of regular faculty members in the academic activities
of CSDS.”
Such
lack of interest of CSDS faculty in the activities of their own institution
being recorded in official meetings year after year raised the inevitable
question: Is it because the activities are not worthy of much interest?
Minutes
of September 20, 2014 meeting record as follows:
“It was suggested by “some
members of the Board that the Centre should not allow the Visiting Fellows to
take break or long leave as the visiting fellowships are offered for a fixed
term”.
This
confirms my charge that Visiting Fellows often don’t find the time to “Visit”
the Centre often enough even while drawing handsome salaries from the
institution. Last year, under pressure
from the B.O.G. a system of making fellowship holders give one presentation in
a year was introduced. But this too
lacks a mechanism for evaluating the academic worth of the presentation. All
you get are polite oral comments by way of feedback, which the person concerned
may or may not heed at all.
At the
time of approving rules for “Academic Leave” at the behest of the Board, it was
forcefully suggested by certain members of the Board including the Member
Secretary of ICSSR, that the rules operational in other ICSSR funded research
institutions (such as Institute of Economic Growth in Delhi University) be
applied to the CSDS. This was resisted
and rejected with determination.
Such
“flexibility has enabled the habitual jetsetters to find on one pretext or the
other to go abroad while drawing emoluments at the Centre, thus earning double
or maybe triple incomes. For instance,
the previous director remained abroad for large part of his seven year tenure
as head of the institution. On one occasion he was away ten months at a stretch
leaving the administration under charge of officiating directors. So frequent were his foreign jaunts, even by
the lax standards of CSDS that he was jokingly referred to as a “Visiting
Director”.
No Account
of Extra Incomes From outside Assignments
Yet
another issue that has defied regulation is pertaining to extra income from
consultancies and foreign assignments that faculty members routinely
undertake. They are not required to take
prior permission for taking on remunerative consultancies or teaching
assignments abroad. Nor are they
expected to disclose the extra income they earn from such assignments, leave
alone share a part of the extra income with the parent institution. There have been several instances whereby faculty
members went away for several months on highly paid teaching assignments abroad
while drawing full salary from the Centre.
It is only in 2011 that the Board insisted that in case a person is
getting full salary abroad in foreign currency, she/he cannot draw salary at
CSDS for that period. But there is no such restriction on getting hefty
honorariums for lectures abroad – which can amount to more than the salary. It is also common practice for faculty
members to claim that the remuneration given to them during their foreign
assignment is not “adequate”, therefore they should continue getting half their
salary at CSDS. The issue of
sharing a part of extra income with CSDS has been raised time and again in
faculty meetings as well as in Board meetings but the Ruling Coterie manages to
sabotage any such requirement even though the extra income is earned at the
cost of CSDS and the public exchequer.
In
this regard, the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 26th November 2011 recorded
as under:-
“7.6 The Director agreed that
the Board’s suggestion of including a section in the Rules on extra earnings by
the permanent staff through other assignments/consultancies will be done after
consulting the faculty. The Board suggested that if a permanent staff earns
more than Rs 1 lakh per annum, apart from his/her salary, through other outside
assignments/consultancies, he or she should take prior permission from the
director and 10% of such extra earnings will be given to the Centre”.
Needless
to say, the faculty never let the above mentioned Board approved rule be
implemented. Nor has anybody thus far
given 10 percent of the extra income from consultancies etc. to the Centre. The
issue of enforcement was conveniently shoved under the carpet.
The above account shows how the Board of Governors has been reduced
to a hapless body, who begged and pleaded with the faculty for a whole decade
to adopt some measure of discipline in the organization. But they could not ensure the implementation of
those Rules even for a day. This is in
large part due to the fact that barring two representatives of ICSSR, all other
members of the Board are in effect appointed by the Ruling Coterie of the
faculty which not only decides who is to be put on the Board as faculty
representatives but also has arrogated to itself the power to decide who all
are to be invited from outside CSDS to be part of the Board. Since in the last
few years, BJP bashing & Modi demonization is the most valued “academic
activity” at CSDS, most members who are invited to the Board of Governors share
the Coterie’s pathological aversion to BJP.
Coming back to the filibustering around Rules, in the next
part I will describe how the more than generous “Rules” adopted at the behest
of the Board began to be undermined and subverted within no time of their
adoption through the clever stratagem of appointing yet another Committee to
draft “Norms for Self Governance at CSDS.” The pathetic fate of this exercise
can be gauged from the fact that though the abovementioned Committee was
appointed in 2012, it has not condescended to finalize those norms till date!
To be continued
See: CSDS Saga Part 3, CSDS Saga Part 2, CSDS Saga Part 1 & also See: CSDS: A Citadel of "Academic Freedom" Unmasked"
No comments :
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated only to censor profanity