S. Akbar Zaidi, The
Dismal State of the Social Sciences in Pakistan (Islamabad: Council of Social Sciences, Pakistan, 2002), pp. 54.
Price. Rs. 50.--.
The state of the social sciences has been a subject of
much concern among the few social scientists of Pakistan. In 1988 a conference
was arranged on the subject by the Quaid-i-Azam University. The papers read out
in this conference were collected together in one volume entitled The State of Social Sciences in Pakistan
(1989). This has recently been reprinted by the council of Social Sciences (COSS).
This organization, (COSS), is the initiative of Dr. Inayatullah who is not only
a social scientist himself but is also trying to infuse fresh vigour in the
moribund body of the social sciences in Pakistan.
The author, Dr. Akbar Zaidi, is a well known social scientist
whose work on political economy, public policy and social change is highly
regarded in the field. This study was commissioned by some foreign donor but it
has been published by the COSS and is, therefore, available to Pakistani social
scientist.
After a brief introduction Dr. Zaidi goes on to the
section on the parameters for his study. In this section he establishes the theoretical
framework for his investigation. Briefly, he argues that institutions are weak
and the state doles out patronage which goes more to sycophants than to
deserving scholars. Thus ‘the poor quality of output of social scientists,
particularly in terms of intellectual pursuit (as opposed to problem-solving)
can be explained by this need for social scientists to find acceptance by the institutions
and representatives of the state’ (p.4). He also goes on to refer to the fact
that upwardly mobile classes do not turn to the academic profession (which is
simply called ‘teaching’) in Pakistan. Then there is lack of free debate
because Pakistan is not a tolerant society.
Zaidi then goes on to argue that there have been five
phases of social science research in Pakistan. The first phase was from 1947 to
1958. In this the traditions of pre-Pakistan India lingered on. The next phase
ran between 1958 to 1971 in which the military-bureaucratic nexus set the rules
for the administrative structure of modern Pakistan. The third phase, running
between 1971 to 1972, was more liberal and creative than earlier ones. The
1977-1988 were the Zia years in which Islamization and the ‘Ideology of
Pakistan’ were emphasized. The period between 1988 to 1999, which is
continuing, is influenced by global changes.
Among academic disciplines the one which has received
most patronage is economics. As research is either paid for the state or,
increasingly in recent years, donor institutions, it is supposed to be socially
relevant. Research for the gratification of the researcher’s intellectual
curiosity is so less as to be almost absent. The section on the institutions
which conduct or support research are listed in a section of the report. Much
to one’s dismay, Dr Zaidi reports that when he interviewed academics he asked
them to ‘name ten of the major or main research institutions in the country’and
not one of them came up with ten names. This implies that they (the
institutions) have not produced enough research to have made an impact.
The situation of social science journals is equally
disappointing. There are very few really standard journals in any field. The
only field which fares better than others is economics but even here the
situation is not very encouraging. Important disciplines like political
Science, anthropology, demography and sociology are missing. Dr. Zaidi says we
have only Islamic history in the discipline of history. However, the Journal of Historical and Cultural Research published
by the National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research (Islamabad) does
publish papers on all aspects of history. However, the quality of the papers
published is often low. Out of twenty two only three are refereed journals.
This is very discouraging indeed.
The study goes on to give an interesting note on what the
journals are publishing. It turns out to be, as expected, either the kind of
research the state desires (ideological, nationalistic or policy based) or what
the foreign donors want (sustainable development, problem-oriented). In
general, concludes Dr. Zaidi, research ‘does not take place unless someone funds
a “project” ‘(p.28).
The section on the profile of social scientists is the
most interesting. He says there is no scholarly collaboration between academics
in Pakistan. Academics meet each other, and their peers abroad, in their personal
capacity but not through institutions. One major impediment in social science
research is the issue of ‘relevance’. Pakistan academics become ‘clerks or at
best bureaucrats’ in trying to make their research ‘relevant’. They are told to
‘get out of their ivory towers’ otherwise they would get no funds. Because of
such attitudes the best social scientists in the country are productive only
when they live or work abroad. At home they get very little funding and the
pursuit of relevance and university politics makes them waste their time and
energies on non-academic matters.
In the end there are appendices giving details of the
publications of Pakistani academics. These bear out the saddening fact that
among the social scientists of Pakistan ‘these who have made a name for
themselves, all, without exception, have done so when they worked and lived
abroad’. Even if an odd exception may be presented, this observation is largely
true..
I feel that, apart from economics, the author has not paid
sufficient attention to academic disciplines as such. For instance, linguistics
is completely missing although there is some work on lexicography, some on
linguistic theory, a little bit on the description of languages and some on
language policy etc. Similarly history is not referred to as it deserves.
Islamic studies too are not given enough space leaving out work by some respectable
Islamic scholars (such as Khalid Masud, Zafar Ishaq Ansari,
S.H.M Jafri, Riaz ul Islam
etc). Moreover, the social sciences in Urdu and other languages have been
ignored on the grounds that it is not researched enough. It is true that most
writers in languages other than English are not aware of modern research methodology
but some have, nevertheless, provided fairly substantial work (Mobarak Ali and
Ahmed Salim for instance). Moreover there is some good lexicography in Urdu and
some good history and linguistics, the two subjects I know of, in Sindhi.
These are not very serious
flaws, however. The basic conclusions by that author are sound and do give us
an insight into the conditions which are responsible for such paucity of good
research in the social sciences in Pakistan. To conclude, Dr Zaidi and the
Council of Social Sciences have made an important contribution to the problems
of the social sciences in Pakistan. This study should be referred to for a long
time to come when anybody wants to know what is wrong with the social sciences
in this country.
Dr. Tariq Rahman