After roughly 27 years of serving the technical corps of the Indian Army, I jumped into policy research at a prestigious think tank with multiple aims of pursuing a field I was extremely keen to contribute to, a settled family life and my daughter’s continued education in her critical 10+2 years. I was anxious that I would not meet the standards especially because we military officers have zero experience or training in research matters. Thankfully I had plenty of time to read ( which I enjoyed very much) and slowly found a path forward. Tips of seniors and peers guided me along my journey. One advised questioning everything that is already published in my area of research. Another told me to look for authentic sources and data. One wisely said that there is no end to learning and it’s the field trips that provide the most useful insights. One kind person told me that the biggest challenge would be the self-censorship that military officers are afflicted with – where we cut out genuine findings because we fear it will go against the current disposition.
But some of these same persons also said that research has no meaning without sufficient data and pooling our insights is simply not the way the system works. In the “system”, every scholar needs to cite sources, reference information, draw inferences and publish under his name. This contributes to the body of knowledge in the area and allows others to verify the sources of information for sound reasoning and authenticity. Others will then either point out inconsistencies or, if they are satisfied, use this knowledge in their fields and so the body grows wider and deeper. PhDs are preferred because they have built research and analytical skills, have acquired very deep understanding of very niche areas and emerge as ‘experts’ or ‘gurus’ in their fields. They then get recognition and awards and fancier titles and of course, a higher grade pay. One of these PhDs, kindly tipped me on how one must decide the concluding chapter of the research book first and then start writing from the beginning towards it.
I too wanted recognition and rewards. But I also wanted to provide solutions which worked. Like the software programmes I had made early in my service and which gave me a terrific high. So, I interacted and read and visited until I had some new insights and a kindly senior pushed me to write my first piece. I didn’t sleep the night before I submitted it and my hand trembled before I hit the Enter button to email it to my editor. It came back with over 40 errors all marked in red, but a kindly message guiding me on what to do. I corrected them and sent it again.
And low and behold! It was published! I felt proud but also very nervous that I would be criticized for poor work and incorrect understanding especially because it brought up some controversial aspects. But no. I received no feedback – good or bad. So I wrote another five over two years, with increasingly controversial content, not because I wished to, but because the evidence was simply there. I reached out to many very senior persons and experts for critical comments. None came. And then I wrote a book compiling my findings and since, towards the end, I still had many unclear areas, I wrote requesting experts from varied fields to criticize my findings and provide deeper insights. I did this because I was nervous that my conclusions might have been wrong. Again, no feedback except for one person who seemed upset and asked why I hadn’t done a mathematical analysis and another who said I was right but did not publish a review he promised he would.
It was strange! The government had paid me a handsome salary for two years to do a job and they and the rest of the system were not interested in confirming and utilizing the returns? How can that be? How does that help the country? One scholar even joked about how research books are published and simply land on the shelves of the library where they gather dust.
I looked around at the other think tanks and I found that even though one of them, openly encouraged questioning, they and the others provided no means of questioning their research pieces! And I would email them my queries but receive no responses. But then how are solutions to be found? Because surely, none of us have all the pieces of the picture, nor the perfect reasoning abilities. I happened upon how Mendel’s humble findings in genetics were acknowledged only many decades later when people noticed that the evidence did not match the prevailing theory of a renowned scientist and hence questioned it. If the questioning had happened earlier, would not the world have benefited from its findings earlier?
I found numerous think tanks being started by very sincere and focused people, mostly working pro-bono towards finding effective policy solutions to real life problems. But, these use discussions of like minded people with experience and knowledge in adjoining areas. With the result that they miss out the angles which others outside their group can see. So, if a group of top security and technology experts discuss, they will end up providing a policy solution which misses out the economics or legal angle. How does this immense effort help anyone?
So I mulled it over and formed a group of around 20 varied experts called Co-creators for a 360 degree analysis of a problem. In this case it was the direction and policy that most benefits the defence industry and the people of India. I pulled in experts in government finance, the three forces, industrialists, startups and even active scholars from six think tanks. I explained to them and went around explaining my collaborative concept to everyone. They all nodded and still nod that it is a very sound approach. But despite reaching out to funders and philanthropists, government and think tanks, no one seems to want to step in. I wonder why? Especially the think tanks who already possess infrastructure, human capital and systems. All they need to do is attempt to employ this technique and fine tune it to success.
So, what is ailing our think tanks? I have stood up anxiously in seminar after seminar over the past few years asking questions, received a few good replies but no further activity to engage me in finding the answers. When I approach them directly, they shy away and recently, one of them which I regard the highest among all of them, broke my heart when it unceremoniously asked me to leave or they would order the guards to get me out. When all I was doing was to enquire about some inconsistencies in the evidence that I was seeing.
Is it the funding? Many scholars need jobs and salaries. So maybe they fear that pointing out inconsistencies in the very agencies that fund them will mean losing their livelihood? Is it the prevailing political ideologies? Which are so powerful that the scholars fear for their lives? But there are opposing political parties and people who have been unnecessarily offensive but who are speaking up on grounds of indisputable fairness. And we know that in todays hugely transparent world, government agencies and even the judiciary, cannot provide irrational and biased judgments without the rest of the world knowing.
Is it because of the pressure to score high credibility ratings for their think tanks and journals and the indices which are based more on the volume of citations rather than sound and effective outcomes towards solving real life problems? Is it the volume of readership because they are the ones who pay for it? And hence popularity is more important?
Is it that they are embarrassed that their previous papers and narratives will now show up as inconsistent or irrational or biased or even motivated? And they will lose their credibility? And their funding?
Is it because the reputed and powerful people in top offices on whose opinions these think tanks have based their findings, may now be shown in poor light?
But in todays social media connected world, is it not inevitable that the average person will start seeing contradictions in the evidence and what is published? And that their uncertainty and distrust will only build up when they receive no answers to their questions? And then will they not turn to more drastic measures to find the answers and solutions to their problems?
Is it a lack of empathy and compassion? For the poor and weaker people who suffer quietly from poorly developed public policies? And since they do not have the ability to question the powerful intellectual elite, and are easily swayed, we can push narratives which blind them to reality and keep them happy?
The violent reactions to the allegedly corrupt selection for the railways and the new four year tenured military recruitment scheme are clear indications that there is dissatisfaction and discontent. And if we go deeper, we will see that it exists in the Kashmiris and Manipuris and many other areas. If you have read my piece Should we blindly take sides with people and parties? you would have realized that I have no political party affiliations. Just one political intention – that we work towards the collective well-being of the people of India.
Is that so hard for us scholars to do? To adopt this neutral stand and empathise with the people? And let these guide us to solving our problems?
Are there any other angles you can see? Do share…….
Would you like to support the Co-creators? Do write in at kevin@co-creators.co.in