Expanding India’s Expertise

Recently, Sanjaya Baru, the Prime Minister’s former Press Secretary, sounded the alarm over how many of the Indian think-tanks were now dependent on foreign public and private institutions — the World Bank, DFID (UK), Oxfam and many others — for financial support.  He correctly  walked away from the notion that these think-tanks were therefore  “captured” by these foreign institutions.  Even in the 1960s, when one of my distinguished Delhi School of Economics colleagues objected to Ford Foundation funding of a Conference, I rejected such  “nativism”.  [I did organize successfully however the agitation against the use of PL480 rupee funds by the US government on Indian education because the scale was so immense that it would have exceeded the  Indian government’s normal education expenditure, putting at risk our educational autonomy de facto and I thought that this was unacceptable.]

But a more nuanced worry may be in order. Unless Indians are very different from non-Indians, funding does constrain what you will do: this is simply a matter of prudence, not of being “bought”.  I will give one personal example. I was on the board of an important Indian NGO which deals creatively, and reflecting both cosmopolitan interest and India’s perspectives, with trade issues. This NGO was fully sympathetic to the myriad writings by me and Professors  Arvind Panagariya and T.N.Srinivasan, among others, warning how the demands to include labour standards in trade treaties and institutions were tantamount to “ export protectionism” (in the sense of seeking to raise the cost of production abroad to moderate competition). We had forcefully argued that these demands  must be rejected as being driven by labour unions in the West who were wrongly fearful of trade with the developing countries, even though the language of altruism was used to mask these unions’ self-interested  agitations.

Having been funded by foreign agencies which wanted them to work with foreign think-tanks, the Indian NGO had organized a Seminar on the subject in Washington D.C. under joint auspices with Carnegie. The Indian NGO wanted me to play a prominent role; but they had to agree to my being downgraded because Carnegie had embraced the protectionist agenda on labour standards. With foreign funding, both current and prospective, the Indian NGO felt that it had little choice and sought my indulgence. I resigned over the incident from the NGO, only to return later as I saw the difficulty in which foreign funding had placed its able Director.  He had integrity; he was penitent. But he had to be prudent or his NGO would be financially crippled.

I have also worked with Western  NGOs such as SA8000, which certifies firms for social corporate responsibility (CSR). It is a splendid organization that is a pioneer in this area. But its specific choice of what defines CSR is not necessarily what Indian businesses should buy into, especially on demands such as the payment of a “living wage” which are likely to harm, rather than help, the assault on poverty in India.  So, one would expect the Indian corporate sector, led by the Tatas, Birlas, Infosys and Wipro among others, and working with  indigenous NGOs (who are usually small and focused unlike gigantic NGOs like Oxfam which have become like big businesses diversifying into all kinds of areas where they have no expertise and do much harm) and economists, to develop and push labeling that reflects  views on CSR that reflect Indian constraints and objectives. But neither the corporate sector nor the government has done this, to my knowledge. Meanwhile, do not believe for a moment that the US government keeps away from supporting NGOs like SA8000 which has received substantial US- governmental aid.  Or that US businesses and foundations do not actively support local NGOs in India that reflect US, rather than, Indian perspectives.

I have long argued therefore that the Indian government and the Indian corporate sector also should support our own NGOs and think-tanks which therefore do not have to be overwhelmed by the NGOs and foundations , mainly reflecting the viewpoints of where they originated and often have headquarters.  To  win in a duel, you have to make sure that you do not use a knife against someone armed with a pistol. If the self-serving arguments of foreign foundations, think-tanks  and NGOs , which also have a compliant Western press  —  use your Google to see that the New York Times has run only one  story, by Celia Dugger when I complained to her,  on how labour standards in trade treaties are considered by the developing countries to be a protectionist threat —  to undermine our interests, are to be met successfully, we better support our own NGOs and think-tanks.

This also means that the government must do more to draw in our NGOs and think-tanks when it goes to negotiate at international meetings. Typically, the US delegations draw on several stakeholders and eminent policy experts. With rare exceptions, the Government of India permits only business institutions like CII and now FICCI, to join them. I was at the famous Seattle meeting of the WTO that erupted into protests.  But I was in the streets and in debates at the Town Hall with Ralph Nader and others, and on Panels set up by the WTO. But I was not consulted once by the official delegation. Nor were any eminent Indian trade economists with our delegation . We therefore go handicapped  into international negotiations with just our bureaucrats: they are a fine lot  but they are not supermen! I might add that the experience of negotiations is also likely to  make our scholars and NGOs more effective as it is important for them to understand the political realities that intrude on and make their policy-related analysis more effective.

Since many eminent Indians in a variety of fields are either settled abroad or act as “yo-yo” or “to-and-fro” migrants, it is good to see that the Prime Minister has also now started drawing on their talents more formally, thus strengthening the government’s expertise in turn. I and Professor Srinivasan of Yale, an eminent economist, were drawn upon by him in 1993 to write a Report on India’s Reforms: Next Steps for the Finance Ministry. This was probably the only  major initiative since my being drawn in from Delhi School of Economics, when I was working in India,  to write a report on India’s trade policy and necessary reforms in 1966: a memorable dividend being that I was taken to see the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to talk about my Report! Today, the Prime Minister has set up the Global Advisory Council, drawing on several eminent overseas Indians in different fields, for advice.  Minister Kapil Sibal is also engaged in several commendable steps to strengthen our capabilities in higher education, drawing carefully on possibilities of scholarly collaboration with foreign universities (though I should warn him that  he needs strict quality control, insisting on high-quality teaching and research, and frowning on “consultancy” projects by unscholarly entrepreneurs at universities including my own).  We are well on our way.

The original article appeared in the Times of India .