Vinay Sitapati writes: The harassment of CPR is disturbing — and counter-productive for government

What exactly does CPR do? Most Indian universities prioritise teaching; faculty members are so overburdened with students and administration that research, with its requisite of unfettered time, is seen as a luxury. And what little research is produced is mainly for fellow academics, rather than the world outside. CPR differs in both respects. Since its faculty don’t have to teach, they can work without interruption in the meditative silence required for deep work. And their research is valuable to politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, and policy wonks — not just academics. While my own teaching is limited to influencing students in the classroom, the educational model of CPR reaches out to many, many more.

For this sort of educational and research model to stand, two sturdy legs are necessary. The first is self-motivated faculty who can release a stream of books, articles, and policy briefs. CPR has unleashed, instead, a river. From federalism to climate change, urbanisation to state capacity, the productivity of its faculty puts most university departments to shame. The second leg required for CPR to stand in the absence of teaching fees is donor money: From government ministries, aid agencies, and philanthropic foundations.

It is this second leg that the government’s assault on CPR has been designed to break. Five months ago, the government conducted a tax “survey” on CPR. The authorities could have simply posed questions via email. But the raid-like quality of this survey — with bellicose tax officials and tipped-off cameramen — was meant to convey a message.

It has now sent a new message. The home ministry has decided to suspend CPR’s FCRA license. An FCRA licence is required by any NGO that seeks money from abroad. Such a requirement might seem innocent — why, after all, should an Indian institution rely on foreign funds? But since this government is advocating foreign investment in the for-profit world, why should not-for-profits be treated differently? Why practise liberalisation when it comes to an Indian company, but license-raj for Indian think tanks and NGOs? The practical result of suspending CPR’s license is that foreign donors are formally prevented from giving money, while domestic donors are sent an informal missive. In this climate, it will take a brave Indian industrialist to give money.

The targeting of anyone is wrong. But the particular tragedy here is that institutions like CPR are central to the government’s own objectives of intellectual self-sufficiency. My own return to India from the United States to write books for a wider Indian audience was influenced by the “make in India” nationalism of CPR. Far from being puppets of foreign anti-India forces, CPR’s research adds an Indian voice to global conversations. To give just one example, its research on climate change has influenced Western-dominated institutions into taking India’s unique constraints seriously. Its faculty also provide technical advice to central ministries such as rural development and environment, as well as state governments like Punjab and Meghalaya. Bureaucrats rely on CPR for policy inputs that are unavailable within. Many officials who call the shots in the current government have benefitted from CPR. They now seem too scared to play up that association. But does anything about CPR sound like the machinations of an anti-national institution?

The harassment of CPR will likely be celebrated by the BJP’s ecosystem. And its non-partisan, understated, nature does not lend itself to a left-liberal cause celebre. But its targeting should agitate those of us who value staid scholarship that speaks for India in global discussions while offering research muscle to Indian policymakers.

The writer teaches at Ashoka University. Views are personal