TISS Vice Chancellor Calls for Transition from 'Tata Mode' to 'Government-Institution Framework'

Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) must now transition from a “Tata mode” of functioning to a more accountable “government-institution framework”, its Vice Chancellor (V-C) Professor Badri Narayan Tiwari said in his first interview since taking charge in 2025, while insisting that academic freedom and debate on campus would continue. In an interview to The Indian Express , Tiwari, who is the first full-time Vice Chancellor appointed under the Centre’s revised governance framework after the 2023 regulations expanded the government’s role in TISS, said the institute had been unfairly stereotyped over the years as an “anti-government” campus despite its long history of working with governments across political dispensations on research, policy and social development. He also argued that “criticism should come with suggestions, not just opposition for its own sake” and that universities should primarily function as spaces for “academic engagement and research”, not “political sloganeering.” Founded in 1936 by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, TISS is known for its social science programmes and field-based research, but over the last decade has also frequently found itself at the centre of ideological and political debates. While it received most of its funding from the government, the Tata Trust continued to play a significant role in shaping and governing the institution until 2023, when the Centre revised regulations to increase its control over deemed universities receiving more than 50 per cent government funding. Under the revised framework, appointments of Vice Chancellors and senior officials are now made by the government. Tiwari, a social scientist whose work has focused on folklore, marginalised communities and grassroots politics, previously headed the Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute in Prayagraj. He is the first TISS V-C appointed by the government under the new system. Edited excerpts from the interview: Q. You took over as TISS Vice Chancellor at a time when the institute was witnessing a leadership gap and campus unrest. How has your understanding of the institution evolved over the past year? A: TISS is one of the biggest social institutions in the country. Earlier, I headed a much smaller research institute (G.B. Pant Social Science Institute), so I knew TISS would be far more complex because of the scale and diversity of its work. But I soon understood its potential. The faculty are deeply committed to teaching and field research, and the student population is truly national. There was also a perception that TISS was a space of constant dissent and conflict. But once I started interacting with faculty, deans and students across schools, my perception changed. I realised that if you engage with people intellectually and interact with them at an equal level, you can work with everyone. What also struck me was TISS’s unique model of combining teaching, research and field intervention. Unlike many universities that are largely classroom or research-oriented, faculty here work directly in the field and connect those experiences to teaching, social change and public policy. This also creates strong interaction between teachers and students, which is often missing in Indian institutions. Q. What do you think is the biggest misconception people have about TISS? A: There are a lot of stereotypes about TISS, starting from how this is home to a particular ideology, everybody is a protester here, everyone is anti-government. But this is all untrue. The TISS has always worked with the establishments irrespective of who has formed the government. But a few instances happened and brought a very different image to the institute. Our role has been to participate in the nation’s development through research input. Development is not particularly for any party, a PM or CM; it is for the public. There are so many professors in the institute working on various policies, its implementations and process of social change, and they are working in those sectors for 20-30 years. All for poor, marginal and vulnerable sections of the society. This cannot be seen in any other university Q. Despite its legacy in research and public service, TISS has increasingly come under political attack and been portrayed as a “second JNU”. Do you think this perception is politically driven? A: A lot of different kinds of research happen at TISS. But one particular kind of research and a certain section of professors became more visible because of their ideological positions. Over time, that visibility started shaping the public image of the institution. For example, during the Bhima Koregaon episode, a few students from TISS were involved. But these were five or six students out of nearly 6,000-7,000 studying in the institute. Yet those incidents created a much larger perception about the entire institution, even though most students had nothing to do with it. Similarly, despite the wide range of research taking place at TISS, the work of professors with particular ideological leanings received greater attention. Their visibility eventually became dominant in media coverage and political discourse, shaping the image of TISS in a particular way. Q. For a long time, despite receiving government funding, TISS retained significant institutional autonomy, with much of its functioning shaped by the Tata Trust rather than direct government control. But after the 2023 guidelines expanded the government’s role, there is now a perception that this could affect the institute’s autonomy and academic freedom. How do you respond to those concerns? A: In many ways, TISS continues to function in what I call a “Tata mode”. Many professors here are deeply committed to the institution and still want it to function in that earlier framework. But gradually we are moving towards a more government-institution model. I do not mean that negatively. I mean bringing in greater accountability in the use of time and institutional resources. Earlier, there was far greater flexibility, especially around external work and consultancies. That was more possible under the Tata Trust model. But when salaries come from government funding, there has to be greater accountability to institutional responsibilities as well. At the same time, I do not want to create a surveillance culture. We are not trying to police people. We want systems to function better. Instead of immediately introducing measures like biometric attendance, we first engaged directly with schools and departments to improve regularity and accountability. The challenge is to bring in clearer systems and procedures without undermining institutional freedom. Q. But what about concerns over academic freedom? A: Academic freedom will continue as it is. The same professors are teaching the same subjects as before, and there has been no instruction on what they can or cannot say in classrooms. Some old TISSians have complained that discussions and debates on campus have reduced. But when I met PhD students within two months of joining, I asked them to submit proposals on the seminars they wanted to organise and the scholars they wanted to invite. We assured them of institutional support, but no proposal has come so far. At the same time, I understand that TISS earlier had a certain intellectual culture, which was a particular kind of discourse and invited speakers. My attempt is not to stop that. Different kinds of people and ideas should continue coming to campus. But I also believe criticism should not be merely for the sake of criticism. If you are receiving government funding, debates should be serious, constructive and suggestive. I tell faculty members that criticism should come with suggestions, not just opposition for its own sake or unnecessary criticism. Q. What do you mean by unnecessary criticism? A: If you say the government is doing something wrong, then you should also explain what exactly is wrong and what can be done differently. Policies should be discussed seriously. For example, you can analyse schemes like Ujjwala, their impact and their shortcomings. An academician should speak as an academician, not as an activist. I feel institutions should prioritise people who engage seriously with issues in an academic way. For instance, Prabhat Patnaik in JNU is a Left scholar, but he speaks as a scholar rather than as an activist. There are others who always speak in an activist mode. During the Viksit Bharat programme, we asked every school to organise events around their own themes and invite scholars accordingly. People like Amitabh Kundu and Surjit Bhalla also came. If you want to discuss policy, then invite people who have seriously researched that policy. But if someone only wants to use the campus as a political space, then that becomes problematic. Social sciences are a difficult domain because people quickly place you in one ideological camp or another. But scholars genuinely working on issues like water, agriculture, tribal rights or prisons are heard across ideological lines. My view is that campuses should encourage serious academic engagement rather than political mobilisation. Q. Institutions like TISS are often seen as spaces for discussion, debate and dissent, especially within the social sciences. Given the increasing role of government funding, do you think that space for open debate could shrink on campus? A: I do not think the space for debate and dissent is shrinking. Anyone should be able to question ideas during seminars and lectures. But dissent should contribute to intellectual engagement and academic discussion, not merely become slogan-shouting. If someone wants to actively do politics, political parties have their own spaces for that, whether CPM, Congress or BJP. Universities should primarily function as spaces for academic engagement and research. Everyone may have their own ideological commitments, but the institution must come first. My appeal has been “TISS first.” The institution’s academic reputation affects projects, rankings, placements and opportunities for students. That is why we have asked people to balance ideological positions with institutional responsibility. Q. Your work as a researcher has focused on marginalised communities and grassroots politics. How has that shaped your approach in leading an institution like TISS? A: My work has given me a people-centric perspective and taught me the importance of listening, understanding complexity and valuing different voices. As a researcher, I also understand the difference between using issues politically and studying them academically. Serious academic work requires rigor, depth and commitment to field realities. That understanding helps me engage with faculty and researchers not just as an administrator, but as someone who understands the challenges of fieldwork and the importance of intellectual freedom. At TISS, my priority is to create conditions where faculty and students can do better research. Q. TISS has long had a reputation for politically engaged students. But the institute recently replaced the Student Union model with a Student Council structure, a move that drew criticism from sections of students. Why were these changes introduced? A: The changes were introduced to create a more participatory and accountable student governance structure, with representation from every class. The earlier system had its own history and challenges, and over time there was a need to move towards a more structured model, drawing from frameworks such as the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. The idea was not to make student participation symbolic, but to involve students more actively in institutional functioning. Issues like food quality, cultural programming and campus life should not rest only with the administration. Students should also participate in shaping and monitoring these systems. The aim is to encourage constructive engagement for the institution’s growth. At the same time, campus politics should remain focused on academic and institutional development rather than external political agendas. Across universities in India, aggressive forms of campus politics have sometimes disrupted institutions and created difficult situations for faculty and administrators. Student politics should remain democratic, intellectual and dialogue-driven, not disruptive. Q. The TISS has faced serious financial difficulties in recent years, including delays in salaries and concerns over funding. Has the situation improved, and what are the challenges that still remain? A: The immediate funding crisis has largely been resolved. Government grants are now coming on time, and there are no delays in salaries. The earlier crisis emerged mainly because of rapid institutional expansion over the years. New campuses, schools, and initiatives were opened across different locations, but the financial resources required to sustain that expansion were limited. As a result, much of the institution’s corpus was exhausted, creating pressure on salaries and operational costs. My approach has been about focusing more on consolidation than expansion. There were also tensions in the institution’s relationship with Tata Trusts at one stage. Some Tata-funded staff members were in protest mode over issues such as salaries, PF and benefits. We held discussions with Tata Trusts, including with CEO Siddharth Sharma, and those conversations were positive. The relationship improved after that. Currently, Tata Trusts supports around 45-46 faculty positions in the institution. Tata Trusts has indicated support for the next three years, but eventually the institution will have to develop internal resources because such support cannot continue indefinitely. We are exploring multiple strategies to be prepared for this, which includes seeking continued support from the trust along with resource generation through projects and increased fee structure, departmental funding support, and seeking additional sanctioned positions for which these faculty members can compete. At the same time, there is also an option for all such faculty members to join elsewhere. Q. What are your top three priorities as the vice chancellor? A: My three key priorities for the TISS are transformation, financial stability and academic re-visioning. First, the institution is going through a major transition, especially in the context of the National Education Policy (NEP). Further, TISS has historically functioned in a different institutional framework, and now we are moving toward a more structured government institute model. My focus is on ensuring this transformation to take place smoothly while addressing gaps. Second, financial stability is really important. We are working toward stronger internal resource generation and a multi-funding model, where different organisations and institutions can support TISS in various ways. Infrastructure development is also important – particularly student hostels. Currently we have hostel facilities for around 900 students, but we require this facility for over 1500 students. We are actively trying to bring in support for expanding such infrastructure. Third, we need to re-imagine and re-vision TISS in the context of contemporary social science education and research. There are rapid changes in the social science sector and our academic programmes must remain relevant to current situations. We are reviewing courses across schools, identifying overlaps, and thinking about new academic directions and centres. For example, we are looking at emerging areas like Data Analytics and AI.