Hyderabad: This year, the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR) in Hyderabad received Rs 1 lakh only in funds from the Union government. The drastic cut has sparked concerns over the institution’s future.
However, the move is not sudden.
For a few years now, the Union government has been considering self-funding for what it considers as ‘underperforming’ autonomous bodies. Even local bodies and village governments are encouraged to explore new sources of revenue.
In a recent move, the Union finance ministry decided to rationalize 20 autonomous bodies, including NIRDPR, while merging 130 with government bodies and maintaining the status quo on 80 institutions.
The 65-year-old NIRDPR in Hyderabad is one such institution facing the possibility of a closure if it fails to generate revenues on its own.
The move comes after a 2017 report submitted by the NITI Aayog’s principal advisor Ratan Watal suggesting the potential closure or merger of 50 autonomous institutions to improve efficiency and reduce redundancy.
Established in the 1950s, NIRDPR comes under the Union Ministry of Rural Development. It serves as a think tank, a training institute, and a bridge between the Centre and state government institutions like State Institutes of Rural Development (SIRDs). It also provides funding to these state institutions.
Every year, the autonomous institution conducts 1,900 programs, training around 80,000 participants. Since 1992, it has been offering international programs to interested applicants.
One of its major accomplishments was to lay the groundwork for the prestigious Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). It held meetings and seminars and gave valuable inputs to the then Central government before it was tabled in the Indian Parliament as a bill, eventually becoming a law.
NIRDPR was also tasked to evaluate integrated rural development programmes and prepare state and district-level reports for the Union Ministry of Rural Development.
The NIRDPR was initially run by central government officials until it was adopted by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
According to a former head of one of NIRDPR’s seven centres, soon after the institution was adopted by UGC, a stark contrast was observed between a research institution run in a bureaucratic manner and one led by an academic figure, such as a vice-chancellor.
Speaking to Siasat.com on condition of anonymity, the retired professor said issues started emerging when bureaucrats took over the reins of NIRDPR.
“Over time, there was rampant meddling in academic affairs by bureaucrats. For instance, professors were given less power over research work,” the retired professor observes.
The former professor recalled how as a result, NIRDPR’s reputation got a hit. “As every bureaucrat would have his/her ideas and needs, research work was directed mostly on what that bureaucrat would decide. And when a new officer took over, the suggestions by their predecessors would be dismissed and a new set of suggestions would be taken,” the professor said.
“If anyone revolted, the person would be transferred to as far as Assam as a punishment. Hence, faculty members started abiding by the bureaucrat’s whims and needs. As a result, there were several delays in delivering good research work. Slowly, the link between NIRDPR and State Institutes of Rural Development (SIRD) started collapsing,” the professor added.
It should be noted here that NIRDPR serves as a think tank, a training institute, and a bridge between the Centre and state government institutions like SIRDs. It also provides funding to these state institutions.
NIRDPR presently holds 43 faculty members who hold a PhD. This number is way too low when compared to 100 members, 25 years ago. In a way, it had become a non-lucrative career option to work in the autonomous institution.
The institution, which once ran on a 700-employee strength, now has been reduced to half, 220 employees, most of them being non-teaching faculty.
Many present-day faculty strongly feel that if NIRDPR is left to fund for itself and not depend on government funds, it will start charging for training programmes, workshops, and research works, even if the client is the state or Union governments.
“Once we start charging, the state will not send their people for training and capacity building programs. Even for the Union rural development ministry, the autonomous institution will turn unviable and cost-ineffective,” opines a serving professor at NIRDPR Hyderabad, who chooses to remain anonymous.
“If we are expected to be self-funded, we will look for more lucrative options like looking towards the developed countries like the US, or Europe. NIRD will start losing its vision,” the professor observes.
