Now that the dust of the pitched verbal battle that ensued from the ministerial words of wisdom

over the lack of world-class faculty of the IITs and IIMs has somewhat settled, it is pertinent
for us to dig a little deeper and weigh Jairam Rameshs observations in their appropriate
contextual measures. Talking of his ministrys decision to establish a National Centre for
Marine Biodiversity in Jamnagar, a world-class research institute on the model of public-
private partnership with Reliance Industries Limited, Rameshs statement was a not-so-finely
calibrated attempt to bolster a committed neo-liberal governments still relatively diffident (in
face of a small but relatively vocal critics) attempts to progressively withdraw its hands from
education and researchand indeed, from the whole of the welfare sector.
The minister stated emphatically that Indias past sixty years of experience has shown that the
government set-ups fail to attract young talent and government managed institutions cannot be
world-class. Surveying Indias education and research history of the last sixty years from the
elevated vantage point of a ministerial berth, Jairam Ramesh, however, did not consider it
necessary to explain the reasons, other than those that further undermine our confidence in the
political institution he owes allegiance to by ascribing it with unqualified and inherent
limitation, for their failure.

Perhaps that was not the appropriate platform for it; however, in the days that followed, none
of our political figures chose to develop and articulate a more nuanced and honest position.
Humanities and liberal arts chart out the historical trajectory of the growth of a community,
and like the many hues of a rainbow, converge to form the white light of illumination that
irradiates and makes visible the complexities of social systems. It is true today that the
monopoly capital can command to its disposal the kind of money and resources that the
government funded institutions can only be envious of, which in turn enables the former to
generate the other necessary factors for instituting and maintaining centers of research
excellence.
However, it is important to bear in mind the principles on which contemporary corporate
capitalism works. An overwhelming proportion of research would necessarily be in the fields
that would qualify as lucrative, leaving humanities and liberal arts out on a limb, or abjectly
dependent on the liberality of an indulgent patron or a rare institution. While the logic of
filtering everything exclusively through the prism of utility is in itself reductive, it is even more
flawed to confine it to economic efficacy.
In the defense of the marginalised, it is fair to argue that both humanities and liberal arts still
have a lot of social worth and vigour left in them. Any society that aims to stay dynamic and
progressive necessarily needs to be aware of and stay alive to its cultural, literary and aesthetic
forms of thought and expression, which together reflect the creative, imaginative and critical
maturity and evolution of a civilization.
Not only do they chart out the historical trajectory of the growth of a community, but also, like
the many hues of a rainbow, converge to form the white light of illumination that irradiates
and makes visible the complexities of social systems and practices.
Any original work of creativity or research in arts and humanities is an attempt to comprehend
and converse with social processes in its multiple forms through the use of imagination. In their
deployment of imagination, these works offer their readers an alternative lens to examine
through and gauge reality, a lens that not just invigorates and delights in its artistic richness but
is also insightful in its novelty and critical acumen. I contend that these attributes of these
disciplines are today more relevant than ever, when the logic of corporate capitalism is
insistently re-defining education and research in terms of conformity to industry and economic
utility, and our expectations and motivations solely in terms of financial and personal reward
systems.
This brings us back to the question of the government and its institutions. In principle, a
government is constituted to look after the interests of its peopleidentified and defined in
broad terms. In a poor country like India, the protectionist role of the state is even more
important, particularly in the social sector. It has to define priorities, allocate funds for it, and
ensure easy accessibility of the results of research and developmental works.
It is possible, indeed, to assign a lot more money to education and research by curtailing waste,
checking corruption, rationalizing corporate largesse and tax breaks, and promoting a culture
that sees money only as means to an end and not an end in itself. Meanwhile, will the public-
private partnership work? I suppose that question is irrelevant. After all, good and socially
relevant research is not just an outcome of pelf, but also of conscience, vision and good
intentions.