INDIA had its first general elections in 1952 and the Planning Commission began functioning around the same time. I was still a student at the University of Lucknow and not old enough to vote, but vividly remember the enormous countrywide enthusiasm, reported by All India Radio and in the newspapers, that these momentous events generated. The democratic process and centralized planning, the one centrifugal and the other centripetal, then, were the twin foundations that guided the transformation – at once political, economic, and social – of an old society divided by the primordial identities of religion, caste, language, and region into a ‘new state’ defined by the universality of citizenship rights. The future belonged to everybody, and everybody had to contribute to its making according to their individual and collective capacities.

Social scientists, who comprised mainly economists and political scientists, and a few sociologists and social anthropologists, were called upon to advise and assist the government. Understandably, it was the economists who were seen as more than useful, indispensable. On their part, the social scientists felt that for them to respond to the national call, they needed to go beyond the colonial archive and collect reliable information about the prevailing socio-economic conditions of the people from all strata, and critically examine the role of traditional cultural and political institutions (such as caste and the panchayats) in order to be able to advise the government on how to involve people and move forward. The universities, which were not many, and had mainly acted as teaching institutions since their establishment during the previous hundred years, now woke up to the new opportunities.

Fortunately, there were visionaries around, some of them old and imbued with the spirit of the national movement, and others, younger but fired by the promise of a new dawn. The eminent economist V.K.R.V. Rao (1908-1991) established in 1958 the Institute of Social and Economic Growth (later renamed Institute of Economic Growth) alongside the Agro-Economics Research Centre, as a research arm of the Delhi School of Economics.

Twenty years younger than Rao, Rajni Kothari (born 1928) had studied political science at the London School of Economics and taught at the University of Baroda. Recently he had been a senior faculty member at the National Institute of Community Development, Mussoorie, where the Director, social anthropologist S.C. Dube, had invited him to join a group of scholars who included, besides Dube himself, Prodipto Roy and Sugatha Das Gupta. The setting was congenial, the company lively, but the objectives of research were narrow, geared as they were to an ongoing assessment of one major governmental initiative, namely the Community Development Programme. Dube’s own book, India’s Changing Villages (1958), had been an early and in many ways perceptive study of CDP. Rajni’s vision was much larger and his approach critical if not radical.

 

Rajni established the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in a few rooms in one of the buildings comprising the Indraprastha Estate in 1963. His founding collaborators included historian Gopal Krishna, political scientists Bashiruddin Ahmed and Ramashray Roy, and the sociologist Dhirubhai Sheth. Financial support was mainly provided by the Asia Foundation. Mohan Singh Mehta, diplomat and educationist, was requested to be the Chairman. Before long, Asia Foundation’s undisclosed links to CIA (Central Intelligence Agency of the USA) were exposed and it had to close its operations in India. This was a setback to the infant institution, but it survived on the basis of support from various sources, most notably the Government of India in 1966-67 and then the ICSSR in 1969.

CSDS moved to its present premises at 29 Rajpur Road, a colonial period bungalow, in 1967, and was properly registered as a research institute under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, and Professor B.N. Ganguli, a founder member, became Chairman. Rajni assumed responsibility as Director, but he saw himself at most in the role of primus inter pares. Collaboration in intellectual work, and collegiality in institutional functioning were, for Rajni, the fundamental principles of CSDS. I doubt if organizational matters ever really interested him much. Understandably, he did not stay very long as the Director.

It must also be noted here that unlike the Institute of Economic Growth, which was unidisciplinary and exclusively staffed by economists, and unlike such other research institutes that were being established in the 1960s as multidisciplinary, combining economics with sociology and political science (e.g. Patna) or even history (at Calcutta), CSDS kept economics out of its research programme. The importance of this departure from the reigning wisdom of the time, which bracketed away political, socio-cultural, and psychological dimensions of development as those other things that could be treated as largely non-significant and focused on the economic factor, required both a deep insight into the nature of development in the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa, and the courage to embark upon an innovative research programme.

 

My first encounter with Rajni Kothari took place in the summer of 1966, not long after I had moved from Karnataka University, Dharwar, and joined the Institute of Economic Growth in April that year. It was in the tea room of the Delhi School of Economics, and the person who introduced us was M.N. Srinivas. I was glad to meet Kothari, as I was already aware of his seminal paper on ‘Form and Substance in Indian Politics’ published in 1961 in The Economic Weekly. Also, I had heard S.C. Dube speak highly of him as also had Leslie Palmier, a British sociologist with the UNESCO Research Centre in Delhi. After the tea, as we walked out, Srinivas told me how impressed he was with Rajni’s analysis of the role of caste in democratic politics.

On my own, I was attracted to Rajni’s interest in political theory, in seeing the general pattern in the fast accumulating body of survey data and ethnographical detail. Since my undergraduate days political theory had attracted me, although political science was not my honours subject. This interest was enlivened by the work of political scientists with theoretical interests at the University of Lucknow where I pursued the economics-sociology-anthropology course in the 1950s. There were scholars, such as Gopi Nath Dhawan, who had a book on Gandhi, and Raghuvir Singh. The latter’s original paper on Locke was published in Political Studies when I was preparing for doctoral research. In subsequent years, I read political theorists such as Michael Oakshott, Bernard Crick, W.G. Runciman and Maurice Cowling with enormous pleasure, but had been struck by the fact that Indian political scientists generally did not seem to have a deep interest in theorization. Rajni’s articles had been, therefore, a kind of welcome surprise.

 

Gradually, I began to get to know the CSDS group. It began with Ashis Nandy to whom I was introduced in 1967 by the Dutch sociologist Otome Klein who was a visiting researcher at the Institute of Economic Growth. Soon afterwards, I met Gopal Krishna through André Béteille, Ramashray Roy at a conference on politics and higher education in India convened by Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph at the India International Centre, and Bashuruddin Ahmed and Dhirubhai Sheth during visits with Ashis and Rajni. They were all very welcoming. Later I also got to know Giri Deshingkar.

My interest in and respect for Rajni’s work deepened enormously when I read his Politics in India (1970). What impressed me most was the command over a wide range of things and his impressive ability to synthesize it all together to produce an insightful total picture. In this, I believed, his approach was sociological, and intentionally so. His closest interlocutors were sociologists such as Dhirubhai Sheth, M.N. Srinivas, and André Béteille. At Baroda, he had been also close to I.P. Desai. With them he shared a nuanced understanding of primordial caste identities in a situation of rapid change defined by the twin goals of economic development and democratization of governance. He believed that modernization was the goal and politics was an important instrument in this quest. The opening sentence of Politics in India reads: ‘If "modernization" is the central tendency of our times, it is "politicization" that provides its driving force’ (p. 1). But these ideas – modernization, development, politics – had all to be redefined; note the double quotation marks around them.

I talked with Rajni about his views in several settings, all informal. At IEG we had a long discussion in sociologist Suren Navlakha’s office. Suren, a reticent person, not given to extravagant speech, told me afterwards that he considered Rajni as the most outstanding social theorist active in India in the 1970s, and also the best public educator. He regarded Srinivas’s Social Change in Modern India (1966), which he thought shared many insights with Rajni’s book, somewhat tame by comparison. Ever since then Rajni and I have remained close friends.

 

In early 1978, Rajni, who had recently become Chairman of ICSSR, took me by surprise by asking me to succeed the legendary J.P. Naik, founder member-secretary of ICSSR. I was utterly taken aback, even vastly amused. I explained I had never wished such a responsibility may come my way, and had absolutely no administrative experience, beyond the minor role of Bursar at IEG. I expressed my reluctance in several ways over three meetings. My main argument, why appoint someone who is not interested in that kind of work? His final reply was: ‘That is why! If you take it up, I know you will do it well, in new and imaginative ways.’ He wanted to change the character of ICSSR from a bureaucratic funding agency to an institution generating ideas and promoting new initiatives. I played for time. After careful thought, I decided to consult two persons, P.N. Dhar, who was back at IEG after his years as Indira Gandhi’s Principal Secretary, and Suren Navlakha. I thought Dhar would say, ‘Do it,’ and Suren would say, ‘Don’t.’ I would weigh the arguments pro and contra and decide. Dhar did indeed say ‘Do it, it is time you did something broader, you are young, you will learn,’ Suren did not say, ‘Don’t,’ and this surprised me completely. He said the opportunity to work with Rajni was not to be spurned; I would be foolish to do so. My family was supportive.

 

I accepted the offer and joined ICSSR as member-secretary in April 1978. At this point it is interesting to recall the reactions of some CSDS friends once the news was out that I had agreed to Rajni’s invitation. Ramashray Roy, who had briefly worked at ICSSR as Director of Research, was overwhelmingly enthusiastic. Ashis Nandy approvingly considered it a ‘bold’ decision to take as one was reaching ‘the peak of one’s academic career.’ Bashiruddin Ahmed was explicitly skeptical: ‘You do not qualify for the job. They should have chosen Ram Joshi (whose name was the third on the list after Kamla Choudhry’s): he has the status and the experience.’ Political scientist Joshi was Vice Chancellor of the University of Bombay.

Rajni and I worked in complete harmony. He never interfered, gave advice when I sought it, and always supported my decisions. He promoted two of his favourite ideas, namely ‘Alternatives’ to reigning paradigms of development, and development of social science cooperation on an international footing under the auspices of cultural exchange agreements that the Government of India had entered into with a number of countries.

Rajni completed his three years term as Chairman in 1980. With Indira Gandhi back in power, and given how fiercely critical he had been of the Emergency, nobody expected Kothari would be given a second term, and he wasn’t. I wanted to leave with him, but he advised me strongly against this, saying that I should carry on my work irrespective of the changed political scenario. I stayed on a year, and went back to IEG in August 1981, nearly eighteen months before the end of my five year appointment.

 

Soon after my return to IEG, Professor Sukhamoy Chakravarty, Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), met me at my home in IEG in 1982. He told me that Ashok Mitra (ICS, JNU) was leaving the position of Honorary Treasurer of CSDS as he was returning to Calcutta, and invited me to fill in his place. He referred to my three years at ICSSR and the knowledge of other ICSSR supported research institutes, and the experience of financial administration that I surely had acquired. He had become a member of the governing body of ICSSR (the Council) during my last year, and formed some judgment of my work there.

He explained to me that in the early years CSDS was a small group of like minded scholars, where personal ties and shared ideas had provided the glue that held them together. Rajni had since moved on and was engaged with a broad range of activities, including teaching at Delhi University, and this was a crucial change. I later heard Chakravarty articulate this perception at several board meetings. He was keen that CSDS should retain its unique identity as a ‘think tank’. He also believed that with expansion of both personnel and financial support, CSDS needed to streamline its administrative and financial procedures. He said that the Director, Bashiruddin Ahmed, was already moving in this direction, and it would be helpful for him to have my advice and support. I spoke with Rajni, and he wholly supported Sukhamoy’s initiative.

 

I never was sure how long my tenure as Honorary Treasurer was going to be, and it went on and on for more than twenty years, against rules. Every time I said it was time for me to go, nobody agreed, and I became a kind of permanent fixture and worked with about half a dozen Directors (Bashiruddin Ahmed, D.L. Sheth, Giri Deshingkar, Ashis Nandy and V.B. Singh). I tried in small ways to fulfil the objectives that Sukhamoy Chakravarty had outlined to me. In this, the ablest and most supportive board member was V.A. Pai Panandikar (Founder-Director of the Centre for Policy Research). His contributions as board member over the years far exceed those of anyone else. We worked together and I would like to believe made a positive difference to the working of CSDS.

When Sukhamoy Chakravarty died suddenly in 1990, I was in the USA. On my return, I found his place as Chairman had been taken by Ravinder Kumar (Director of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library). Like Sukhamoy, Ravinder too had this image of CSDS as a brainchild of Rajni Kothari. Moreover, he had immense respect for the distinctive character of CSDS as a ‘community of self-governing scholars.’ In view of this, his conception of his role was wholly supportive, less proactive than Sukhamoy’s, who had believed in the policy of gentle but clearly stated advice. I discussed this with Ravinder on one occasion, and his position was that institutions grow and change over time, and that this was all right so long as the basic objectives were not lost sight of. Continuity had to be balanced with change. He took no interest in administrative matters. Sukhamoy was a rather aloof person; I am not sure any faculty member could have been a personal friend of his. Ravinder was on a first name basis with all senior faculty members. His unqualified support to the proposed large grant to CSDS from the Ford Foundation in 2001 had an audient ear in Jim Manor who headed the visiting team of experts. The grant came through, easing the financial situation of CSDS.

 

Ravinder Kumar retired from the Chairmanship in 1997 and Rajni Kothari became the new Chairman. I told him it was rather scandalous that I should have been Honorary Treasurer for as long and my retirement from the position was overdue. His response was characteristic: with that winning smile on his face and his right hand on my shoulder, he said, ‘Loki kya bat hai, sath chod doge?’ So, I continued. By this time both of us were residents at Sah Vikas Apartments in Patparganj. (The establishment of this cooperative group housing society was the handiwork of CSDS faculty.) We met often and he talked of his own changing views, how far away he had come from the days of Politics in India. In 2005, he wrote, ‘Most threats to democracy [in India] arise from that sector that promotes modernity’ (Rethinking Democracy, p. 17). Fearful of the suppression of cultural pluralism in the pursuit of state power, he declared: ‘The essential destiny of India has been cultural, not political’ (p. 93). This, of course, runs in the face of the modernist credo that a homogenizing secularism is India’s destiny.

 

Rajni also seemed to think CSDS had grown and diversified, as indeed it should have. He had no anxieties about its future or reservations about the new research initiatives. He did not expect everybody to agree with him, or engage in discussions with him. There was one dissatisfaction he had, though, and that was the functioning of the Board of Governors. He thought that it was a largely useless body; fulfilment of a formality required under the rules. At one of the meetings he gave expression to this, suggesting that while the October meeting of the board could be devoted to the discharge of such functions as receiving audit reports and passing budgets, the April meeting should be an occasion for a discussion, perhaps spread over two days, of the research programmes of CSDS. After all, he argued, all board members were intellectuals. He was disappointed that this did not happen, mainly because board members were busy people with other responsibilities for them to maintain continuous contact with CSDS faculty, and also partly because not all faculty members considered an enhanced role of the board in the manner envisaged by Rajni as welcome. They deeply valued the freedom of choice of research goals that they enjoyed. So nothing really changed just because he had become Chairman. He felt rather remote at times from the goings on at CSDS.

In 2002, when Rajni had completed five years as Chairman, Director V.B. Singh told me that ‘Kothari Saheb’ (all of Singh’s predecessors in the Director’s position had been on first name basis with Rajni: a transition had, indeed, taken place) wanted to give up the position, and the ‘consensus’ was that I should succeed him. Rajni did not tell me anything. At the next board meeting, however, he announced his decision to retire, and proposed that I succeed him as Chairman. It was not a surprise and yet it was.

I had mixed feelings. After the meeting, I wished I had talked to him after V.B. Singh had spoken to me. After a good deal of reflection, I talked with V.B. Singh about my sense of disquiet, and suggested that he and I meet with Rajni to discuss the matter. So we did, in the balcony of his flat, one sunny autumn morning. I talked of all of my reasons and misgivings for quite a while; he did not interrupt me once. When as a final argument, I reiterated my view that I was temperamentally a formal person when it came to institutional ‘rules and regulations’, and CSDS was essentially an informal place, he reacted. The Centre had now outgrown its early years, it was a relatively big organization, with diverse faculty, many research programmes, and larger than ever funding. ‘It needs a person like you.’ I persisted, and he retorted: ‘For me to accept your request to reconsider the decision would amount to acknowledging that my original judgement was wrong, and I am not prepared to do that.’ That clinched the matter.

 

I assumed charge as Chairman at the end of 2002, and tried to follow Sukhamoy Chakravarty’s style, all the time fully conscious of the fact that I could only be myself, and act according to my own best lights. When my first three years ended, during which I had worked with three directors – V.B. Singh, R.K. Srivastava, and Suresh Sharma – I was informed by Suresh that the faculty had asked him to tell me that they wanted me to continue for a second term. During these second three years, Rajeev Bhargava joined the faculty and later assumed charge as Director. I had some hand in persuading him to come over from the University of Delhi. I too had felt for some years that the CSDS with its many programmes and projects should have a strong ‘centre’, and political theory would be an obvious choice. My second term ended in December 2008, soon after the distinguished anthropologist Gananath Obeyesekere had arrived as the Rajni Kothari Professor at my invitation endorsed by the board. I was ready to hand over the Chairmanship to Mrinal Miri, who had earlier become a board member at my invitation. Miri is, of course, a scholar of great renown and a highly experienced administrator.

 

Fifty years is enough time for an institution to look back and assess the distance covered, the goals achieved, the contributions made. The end of a half century opens the beginning of another for building upon the vision of the founders, some of whom are happily still in regular and even close contact with CSDS – Rajni himself, Ramashray Roy, Gopal Krishna, Dhirubhai Sheth, Ashis Nandy – and moving forward.

During the last several decades, CSDS has been my second intellectual home in Delhi. At times, I could not hide from myself the fact that my friends at CSDS were more interested in my ideas and perspectives than, perhaps, most of my economist colleagues at the Institute of Economic Growth – but then, that was wholly understandable. As a long time well-wisher, I extend my greetings to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies on its Golden Jubilee.