(The following is an excerpt from The Emperor’s Mirror: The State of Research in India by Dr N Bhaskara Rao, published by Speaking Tiger.)
Are Global Indexes Unfair to India?
Much research on India and the lives of Indians and their potential has been carried out outside India. German scholars were among the first to study Indian society and belief systems. In the early 1960s, ten American Universities set up ‘India centres’. They acquired every book published in India and Indian research and became repositories of knowledge on India in the US. This enabled American faculties to undertake research and analysis on India even before Indian academics were ready to do so. Myron Weiner, Paul Brass and Susanne Rudolf are examples of those early pioneers of research on India.
This kind of research at different universities, by different faculties on a range of themes, gave US academics a certain advantage in terms of analytical argument on India. The American State Department availed of this expertise. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State (1953-59) gave a push to this ‘search India’ research by US scholars. This encouragement led some faculties to start initiatives like the ‘Global Index’. After the 1970s it was former World Bank consultants who took up the ranking of countries as to quantify the trajectory of development, democracy and governance.
In recent years, India has been ranked low year after year in many Global Indexes including by academics in the US, Germany, Sweden, etc. They try to substantiate their ratings with methodologies and sources of data. Not all of them, however, are transparent. Many of them have engaged in such exercises for years. Initially, the Indian Government ignored the ratings. Later, it tried to (allegedly) influence the agencies to adjust or change the rankings favourably, instead of providing a plausible explanation. This explanation could involve the definition of concepts, sources of data and validation of the data concerned. These Global Indexes have not reported any prior discussions with concerned Indian authorities or Indian experts outside the country.
In the last couple of years, the Indian Government (through the NITI Aayog) has taken to performance assessment on a number of issues using the ‘global index model’ for ranking and rating the states and public services within the country.
In July 2022 the Government of India rejected the 2022 Environmental Performance Index, saying that ‘it makes use of biased metrics and weights’ on air quality and rapidly increasing greenhouse gases. This was not the first time the Government reacted this way on the Environment Performance ranking. Its behaviour has been similar over India’s ranking in some other areas like democracy and freedom. Interestingly, in July 2022, the Government claimed that the Environment Global Index emphasised the ‘extent’ of protected area, rather than the ‘quality’ of protection. Year after year, the ranking was rebutted on the grounds that ‘Management Effectiveness Evaluation of protected area is not factored in the computation.’ The core of the issue underlying the Index, or the context, was overlooked.
The reaction of the Government to the 2022 Global Index on Hunger was similar. The impression the Index gives is that Indian children go hungry and are among the most neglected despite the initiatives over the decades, which have been both specific and massive in terms of focus and outlay. But, at the same time, the Prime Minister has cited global indexes whenever it has suited the government, when they reflect some improvement, as for example in 2019 and again in November 2022 on the topic of Innovations, thereby giving legitimacy to Global Indexes.
Why does such a situation continue? It is not that only Global Indexes have been rating India low on critical rankings year after year. The claims made by the government are not in sync with global ratings.
But then it is not only Global Indexes which present India’s performance as far below average. There are many voices, political and professional, within the country too who are critical of and who contest the claims of leaders of the government. In fact, these domestic voices are even more critical and specific. For example, on Democracy, Press Freedom, Environmental Performance, multiple Global Indexes and voices at home bring out the fact that something is missing in India’s story of development and accomplishments.
The Government is either not able to put forward the ‘achievement’ claims convincingly or in the right context, or it exaggerates the accomplishment, unconcerned or disconnected with the ground realities. In all these instances, what is missing is independent researchers, a conducive research milieu and credible voices.
The data sources, assessment, analysis and evaluation and their credibility are either doubtworthy or inconsistent or not substantiated. This lack of reliable data has allowed a contentious atmosphere to develop, as the performance indicated or claimed cannot not be validated. There is no independent voice of individuals or institutes, and successive governments have not addressed this lack with the kind of seriousness that it requires. But how can this be, year after year, and lasting beyond a decade? As if India has not changed over these years or is unconcerned with even dispassionate criticism of its course?
The research, that is the data, analysis and findings compiled by the government itself is not taken at face value. Most of it is presumed exaggerated to suit the government of the day or by sources responsible for implementation without independent validation. This is in contrast to India’s background as the country of pioneers in the field of statistics, analytical expertise and research agencies which have been engaged in monitoring, accumulating data and compiling indexes professionally to a high standard.
Our research agencies have impressive infrastructure, backed by subject experts and years of research insights. And yet research experts are not involved prominently in the research endeavours of the government.
Reliable research would save India from the rankings and ratings that we see in global indexes and ensure that the performance on the ground is corrected or improved. Research includes data, field facts, analysis of data, understanding the linkages between variables, impact and evaluation, estimations and report preparation. It also involves advocating for justifying the indices and concepts involved in the processes of global ranking.
The research infrastructure and capabilities in the country have been acknowledged the world over in the last couple of decades and, in fact, statistical and computer science academia in the US, for example, has been bolstered by Indianorigin scholars for some years. Even in India, in the earlier decades after Independence, research had made impressive contributions, though this was never acknowledged. And yet today, research neither seems to make a difference at home nor help in tackling the dilemma arising out Global Indexes or critics within the country.
The impression one gets is that we have begun to disregard serious, independent research even where it is much needed. It is becoming increasingly evident that it is election time promises and the claims of leaders that drive data and research. This leads to a temporary outlook and limits the tune and scope of research. Politicians the world over do not feel comfortable with independent research. Those in power would rather have ‘supportive’ data or ‘endorsement research’.
Lately, there have been no data claims on public issues by responsible government institutions, the Right to Information Act has been undermined, and apex level judicial regulations have been ignored, and this signals an impending credibility crisis of not just the government but the country’s standing on the whole. It is also a failure of the ‘checks and balance’ provisions of the Indian state.
A Data Protection Bill under consideration in early 2023 by Parliament quietly proposes in section 30(2) to amend section 8(1)(J) of the Right to Information Act and thereby vitiate the very provisions of the RTI Act. It further shuts down transparency in research and data, as the very credibility of data will be under threat.
There has not been an appraisal of research capabilities and their utilisation in fulfilling the primary objectives as indicated in the Constitution, of what the Republic is expected to accomplish. The research efforts of academics have not been looked into. Despite the country’s ‘New India’ development direction, not a single Indian research institute has been globally recognised in the social or development sector. An effort is made in this book, using a couple of examples, to explain where and why we are unable to benefit from research. The scope of research, its challenges and opportunities today are different from the previous decades.
The New Education Policy of 2020, for example, has provided proposals to revive the research apparatus and its utilisation in the country. But there has been no discussion of the implications of proposals like constituting a Research Foundation headed by the Prime Minister. The policy also implies that no distinction exists between social science research and research in the physical sciences and technology.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)