Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - Live
In defence of CPR, a fine public policy institution
In the summer of 2005, a few months after then Nepali monarch Gyanendra Shah took over absolute power, the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) hosted a discussion at its Dharma Marg campus in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. At a time when the entire framework of constitutionalism was under assault in a neighbouring country, CPR gave a platform to democratic voices from Kathmandu who lobbied for India’s support. This played a part in a process that eventually saw a remarkable peace accord between the Maoist rebels and Nepali political parties and the return of democracy, a glorious moment in India’s diplomacy.
My association with CPR began that morning, close to two decades ago.
Since then, it has been an invaluable intellectual resource. As a writer in Nepal, CPR was a regular port of call in Delhi to understand the dynamics of Indian foreign policy in the neighbourhood. As a reporter covering Indian politics in Delhi, CPR’s seminars and papers provided context about the complexity of Indian society and political economy. And as an editor running this newspaper’s comment page, CPR’s scholars regularly provided analysis with the rigour that enriched India’s public sphere.
That is why the public narrative questioning its commitment to Indian interests has been baffling. This is more than personal. What is at stake is the survival of a fine, independent policy research institution. What is also ironic, at a time when the institution is being tarred with the “anti-national” brush, is that much of CPR’s work has been geared to help strengthen State capacity.
Think of the scope of what the think-tank offers.
In foreign policy, CPR was the secretariat for two reports in the past decade — Non-Alignment 2.0 and India’s Path to Power: Strategy in a World Adrift. Agree or disagree with its conclusions, both reports were thoughtful contributions on how New Delhi should navigate a changing world order. CPR has in its ranks one of the finest diplomats to have served India in recent decades, Shyam Saran. In service, he helped deepen ties with the United States, pushed for connectivity in the neighbourhood, underlined the urgency of border infrastructure at the Line of Actual Control, and defended India’s position of common but differentiated responsibilities during climate talks. In retirement, at CPR, he has educated Indians about China, the world, and India’s role through his books and writing.
How much does the State spend on welfare? How is the money spent? What can be done to make the welfare architecture more just and efficient? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the public education system? What is the health of fiscal federalism? Guided by the impulse of equity, CPR chief Yamini Aiyar’s body of work over two decades has helped answer these questions. For those who cast her as a partisan voice, largely because she is the daughter of a Congress politician, her columns in Mint, where she cast a critical eye on the United Progressive Alliance government, should provide food for thought.
On climate, CPR, led by Navroz Dubash, has been at the forefront of addressing India’s twin challenge — pushing back against the developed world for its historical responsibility while creatively and constructively suggesting what India can do more. The environment team’s work on Delhi’s air pollution is another example of bringing science, policy and public health together.
If Partha Mukhopadhyay’s work helps explain India’s urbanisation and the attendant infrastructure and planning challenges it poses, Mekhala Krishnamurthy provides a granular understanding of how agricultural mandis work and the nature of farm reforms India needs.
How do Indians vote? What are the patterns of political representation? How do ideologies, identities, organisations, and political preferences intersect? Combining data with empirical research, Neelanjan Sircar, Rahul Verma and Gilles Verniers at CPR have sharpened our understanding of elections and brought the discipline of political science and media closer.
And Suman Bery, Bibek Debroy and Rajiv Kumar — integral parts of the government’s think-tank system — have all been associated with CPR.
This is not to suggest that all of the thinktank’s work is flawless; indeed, I strongly disagree with some of the recent critical commentaries on foreign policy, especially on India’s approach to China that has come out of the CPR stable. But that is part of a free flow of ideas.
Nor is a recap of CPR’s credentials an attempt to suggest that the income tax authorities, or any other relevant agency, should not investigate the institution if there is any inkling of wrongdoing or that there shouldn’t be accountability for funding. Indeed, CPR has spent much of the last six months cooperating with the investigation and abiding by due process, and it has promised to continue to do so. A fair investigation should, of course, continue till its logical conclusion. But the decision to suspend the think-tank’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act licence for six months could cripple its operations and may well send a signal to domestic funders that the organisation spells trouble.
The narrative against CPR is not merely a problem because of the message it sends out. It is a problem because as India grows, as its governance challenges become more complex, and as it attains an unprecedented international profile, the Indian State needs the best intellectual infrastructure to support its policy needs. CPR is a cog (a vital one, in my opinion) of this infrastructure.
THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST THAT AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT PROBE ANY INKLING OF WRONGDOING. BUT THE NARRATIVE AGAINST CPR IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE THINK TANK IS A VITAL COG IN TACKLING THE MANY CHALLENGES INDIA FACES