 |
|
University autonomy
Profile |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear deal does not
prevent testing Armed forces deserve
better pay
On Record
|
University autonomy The Tribune
(July 23) has published a letter by Dr K.S. Gulia which mocks at the concept of university autonomy as it has come to be commonly understood. It raises an important question: how should the government react when there is criminal misuse of autonomy by the university authorities which is also not only widespread but is growing under political patronage? The same day The Indian Express carried an article, “We will miss you, Dr Kalam”, by Fali S. Nariman, which underlines the high standards of rectitude set by Dr Kalam. Nariman mentions that Dr Kalam always paid from his personal account all the expenses incurred by Rashtrapati Bhavan on his guests which included not only expenses on food but also on the rooms they occupied-”the rooms at the prescribed rate, the food on the basis of expenses actually incurred”. Further, Nariman notes: “Not once was an office vehicle used for any of them.” During my long teaching career, including four years as a Vice-Chancellor, I met only one Vice-Chancellor whose integrity could be used as a benchmark to measure the uprightness of others in the same class — Bhai Jodh Singh, the founder Vice-Chancellor of Panjab University, who was close upon 80 when he was invited to occupy this position. Soon after I shifted from the Delhi School of Economics to Punjabi University (in 1964) we chanced to meet each other at the Patiala bus stand. Bhai Sahib had alighted from a bus from Chandigarh and was met by his personal secretary who was waiting with a hired rickshaw to take him to his residence. Bhai Sahib had no baggage, only a portfolio. I learnt from his secretary that he did not own a car and would not use his official vehicle when not on duty. What I saw and felt assumed a romantic dimension when I was told that Bhai Sahib’s son was the local Deputy Commissioner and a close family friend (perhaps a relation) the District and Sessions Judge. The episode remained in my mind for a long time and its import gradually became an article of faith for me. When two and a half decades later, I myself came to occupy the chair held by Bhai Jodh Singh, I had acquired enough strength to take hard decisions to protect the interests of the institution. I did not make a single ad hoc appointment, believing, as many of us do, that this is the main route to the recruitment of incapable and ill-motivated teachers. I did not invite a single political person to the campus, as I believe it is of utmost importance to insulate our universities from the baneful influence of this class. And for all this, I did not have to invoke the doctrine of autonomy. The Tribune recently initiated a debate on the concept of university autonomy, expressing its own views, rather strongly, in an editorial on April 3. Unfortunately, the entire debate was focused on only one aspect of autonomy, which is comparatively more visible but of less consequence — the autonomy of the university system in relation to the funding agencies, the most important of which are the Central and state governments. The other aspect, the autonomy within a university, was completely ignored. The former affects only the Vice-Chancellor and his coterie, the latter everyone else — the teachers, researchers and employees who are often regarded as cogs. As a concept, university autonomy was first clearly defined by an expert committee of the Inter-University Board (which was set up in 1924). The committee comprised such eminent persons as Dr C.P. Ramaswami Aiyer, Dr A.L. Mudaliar, Dr C.D. Deshmukh, Dr K.L. Shrimali and Dr B. Mullick. The committee recongised three levels at which university autonomy has to function for the system to discharge its responsibilities efficiently: (a) Autonomy within a university — autonomy of the departments, colleges, teachers and students in relation to the university as a whole. (b) Autonomy of a university in relation to the university system as a whole - the autonomy of one university in relation to another, or in relation to the UGC and the Inter-University Board. (c) Autonomy of the university system as a whole, including the UGC and the IUB, in relation to agencies and influences emanating from outside that system. The Education Commission, popularly known as the Kothari Commission, which was set up by the Government of India in 1964 and which purposefully began its deliberations on Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday, fully endorsed the committee’s formulation of university autonomy and, for added emphasis, quoted from Bertrand Russell’s Wisdom of the West that “It is a pity that men in places of power and responsibility are not more often aware of this.” The commission observed unequivocally that “only an autonomous institution, free from regimentation of ideas and pressure of party or power politics, can pursue truth fearlessly and build up, in its teachers and students, habits of independent thinking and a spirit of enquiry unfettered by the laminations and prejudices of the near and the immediate which is so essential for the development of a free society.” How imperative is internal autonomy for a university to grow is tellingly brought out by Eugene Vinaver, Professor of French Language and Literature at the University of Manchester, in an address he delivered to the faculty of the university after he acted for a term as a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. He said: “Among the many interesting things I came across there I have a particularly vivid memory of a conversation I had with a distinguished scientist whom I asked whether the science departments at Chicago had been affected in any way by the regime of the former Chancellor, Hutchins — one of the most controversial figures in American education. “My scientist friend replied that under Hutchins the science departments flourished as they had never done before or since, and that this was because, unlike most chancellors, Hutchins took no interest at all in science. What was wring with Hutchins, he went on, was not his doctrine , but the fact that he had a doctrine: not that he guided people the wrong way, but that he guided them at all. What indeed can be more harmful to a university department than the presence in a position of power of someone who claims to fashion its character and direct its destiny?” Before concluding his address Professor Vinaver stressed on the uniqueness of the university as public institution. “My whole point is”, he said, “that the conditions under which academic work can prosper can never be equated with the political structure of a state or the administrative structure of an army or, for that matter, the rational structure of a large conern. Efficiency in all such enterprises requires within certain limits the abandonment of equality. In an academic body, on the contrary, efficiency is strictly proportionate to the degree of individual freedom, for such is the nature of human intellect that when its freedom is violated, destruction ensues.” Since university autonomy is often confused with academic freedom, both the Kothari Commission and the Radhakrishnan Commission before it were at pains to draw a distinction between the two. Academic freedom “implies that a teacher cannot be ordered or required to teach something which goes against his conscience or conflicts with his conception of truth. In this context, we would also like to emphasise the freedom of teachers to hold and express their views, however radical, within the classroom (and outside) provided they are careful to present the different aspects of a problem without confusing teaching with ‘propaganda’ in favour of their own particular views…. “The proper sphere of university autonomy lies principally in three fields: the selection of students, the appointment and promotion of teachers, and the determination of courses of study, methods of teaching, and the selection of areas and problems of research”.
The writer is a former Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala
|
|
Profile Eighty-year-old Ustad Fahimuddin is the only surviving son of illustrious musician and Padma Bhushan recipient Ustad Rahimuddin Khan Dagar, a great scholar and performer of music. He possessed a marvellous collection of old Dhrupad compositions. Members of the Dagar family are known for their longevity. One of the ancestors of Ustad Fahimuddin had lived up to 120 years. Lovers of music wish Ustad Fahim also a very long life. “Dagar Bani” is most popular and known to be only thriving Dhrupad Gharana (style) of the 20th century. Other Dhrupad Gharanas are near extinction. Dagar Bani claims a lineage of 20 unbroken generations of Dhrupad singers, all the way to Swami Haridas. Ustad Fahimuddin is surviving link in that glorious pedigree. The recorded history of the Dagar family starts with Baba Gopal Pandey, who was a musician in the court of Mughal Emperor Mohammed Shah Rangile. He was ostracised by fellow Brahmins because he accepted a “paan” given by the emperor after being pleased with his singing. Thus, he converted himself to Islam and renamed Imam Bhaksh Dagar. His son, Behram Khan, was the real founder of Dagar Gayaki (music). He settled in the State of Jaipur and had many disciples, including his son Saddu Khan. Among his noted disciples were his grandson Pt. Enayet Khan, his nephew’s sons — Zakiruddin Khan and Allabande Khan. Many outside the family were also his disciples. Behram Khan died in 1877. Pt Enayet Khan turned out to be a great singer, composer and scholar. Zakiruddin and Allabande Khan were great “jugalbandhi” (duet) singers and were at the courts of Udaipur and Alwar. Their great singing in the music conference of 1916 organised by V.N. Bhatkhande has been mentioned in the records. All four sons of Allabande Khan, trained in Dhrupad, became great musicians. Dhrupad has been likened by Ustad Fahimuddin to “Dhruva Tara” — the evening star, the star that never trembles. One of his ancestors, Ustad Zia Fariduddin, has thus described the tones of Dhrupad: “When I close my eyes and begin to sing, there is only darkness….. slowly, light comes, then the beginning of colour.” Ustad Fahimuddin traces his uninterrupted musical lineage to Swami Haridas and Tansen, with 20 generations having been involved in the profession. He quotes his illustrious father as saying “blessings are not alms that you get in charity. You have to earn them with your karma”. He always recalls the couplet his father used to narrate: “Har-har kare to kucch na hoi, hari ko bhaje to hari ka hoi” (by just beating your breast, you will get nowhere; remember Hari (God) and He will overwhelm you with His blessings). Music is a full-time occupation. There was a time, Fahimuddin recalls, when All India Radio played a massive role in preserving, protecting and nurturing music. There was a large presence of musicians, who gave live programmes according to certain moods and ragas and keeping in view the actual time of the day. Now it has all been
eroded. |
|
— President The CBI has gone out of its way, breaking every rule of honest conduct to go after me in what has clearly been a political persecution. — Italian businessman Steady progress would see India among the three economic superpowers by 2040. — Haryana Governor — Film star I saw death yesterday. They would have killed me. — Bangladeshi author Yes, I used to choke in the decider and have lost many matches like that. But now I feel the results have started to come and that has done a world of good to my confidence. — Badminton player — Prime Minister It is imperative to modernise the lowest rungs of the judicial system and introduce high quality and modernised training academies for the judges and lawyers. — Chief Justice of India The difference between success and failure is often one of attitude, and in the complex situation that we have in India, it is easy to find a thousand faults with the system. — Former Union Minister — External Affairs Minister |
Nuclear deal does not prevent testing THE Indo-US Nuclear Deal is arguably one of the most important Foreign Policy issues we have faced since Independence. It is natural, indeed essential, to have a public debate on its implications for our future. While we are bound to have differences on matters of opinion, we have to ensure that at least we get our facts right. Unfortunately much of the criticism being leveled against the deal is based on a distortion of facts. It, therefore, seems necessary to separate some of the myths being propagated by the critics from the reality. In so far as our right to conduct a nuclear test is concerned, no one can possibly question the fact that the agreement itself makes no explicit mention of such an eventuality. It is also a fact that under its domestic law, US would have the right to cease all cooperation in the nuclear field if India does conduct a test. Nevertheless it must be clearly understood that this is not a new right conferred by the 123 Agreement but one that is clearly enshrined in US domestic legislation, which was in existence long before the Hyde Act was passed. The crucial question that arises, therefore, is what possible impact can the 123 Agreement have on our right to test. Those who are trying to mislead public opinion into believing that it is the 123 Agreement that seeks to place restrictions on this right owe it to the nation to answer this question. No effort to refer to the “legalese” of the agreement can blur the fact that we cannot possibly be worse off after we operationalise the agreement than we are now. On the contrary, if we refuse to do so, we would only be denying ourselves the obvious benefits that would flow from the ending of our nuclear isolation. It would clearly be utter folly to do so. To appreciate this point it seems necessary to go back a little into the history of Indo-US nuclear co-operation. This co-operation came to an abrupt end after Pokhran I, when sanctions were imposed under the US domestic laws then in operation. And now, many decades later, we are being told by the US that it is willing to lift these sanctions in view of our track record as a responsible Nuclear Power. Should we gladly grasp this opportunity, or should we say, no thank you we would prefer that these sanctions continue to remain in force, unless you also promise never to reimpose them in the future? The choice is glaringly obvious. The US has offered to resume nuclear cooperation with India and to change the entire international regime in our favour despite our having openly acquired nuclear weapons and notwithstanding the provisions of existing domestic legislation barring such cooperation. In doing so they have taken into account our voluntary, and entirely unilateral, moratorium on further nuclear tests. Despite domestic pressure, no effort has been made to convert this moratorium into a binding international commitment. We thus retain our sovereign right to conduct a nuclear test should any change in our security environment in the future might make this necessary. All this will of course come with a price tag. We will have to assume new obligations, for example by way of opening up our civil nuclear reactors to IAEA inspection. The question is not whether we can afford to enter into this deal, but whether we can afford not to do so. Have those who are opposing the Deal paused to consider the impact of continued nuclear isolation on our energy security? Thus it has been ensured that such termination, if at all it does occur, is not as abrupt as was the case with the instantaneous sanctions following Pokhran I. There are adequate safeguards against it, including the provision for a minimum notice of one year before termination, and an elaborate process of consultations, to take into account inter-alia the changed security environment that might oblige us to conduct another test. Moreover, India’s concerns for uninterrupted supply of raw materials have been adequately addressed to ensure that the Tarapur experience is not repeated. Even if the process of consultations fails to convince the US Administration of the justification for another test, which seems unlikely, and we are obliged to return the materials received from them, we would be in a position to build up adequate reserves and to continue to receive supplies from other sources unlike the earlier ban, which was imposed simultaneously by all suppliers. The second myth, about the impact on our sovereignty and constraints on our pursuit of an independent foreign policy, is even more bizarre. There is not a single provision in the 123 agreement, which is capable of such an interpretation. Every international agreement of course involves a certain degree of give and take, and to that extent can be argued to be having some implications for national sovereignty. The only valid criterion in judging whether it is worthwhile is that the agreement or treaty be based on mutuality of interest – a criterion that is more than adequately met by the 123 Agreement. In this connection mention is often made of the US concerns about our Iran policy. The assumption that India might somehow capitulate to US pressures and adopt a stand on considerations other than its own national interest is totally mistaken and unwarranted. Can anyone possibly argue that given its past record in this regard, the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is in our national interest? It must be appreciated that the 123 Agreement is now a fait accompli. It has also received cabinet approval, which is the only constitutional requirement for its ratification by India. The question before us now is not whether we could have got a better agreement, but whether we would be better off without the agreement. The answer to the latter is an emphatic
no.
The writer is a former ambassador to the UN Disarmament Conference |
|
Armed forces deserve
better pay MORE than two and a half million serving and retired personnel of the armed forces have high expectations from the Sixth Pay Commission. Like in western countries, a proposal for a separate Pay Commission for the armed forces or at least, deputation of a full-fledged member from the forces to the Commission has been mooted. Short visits by members to selected field areas or random discussions with army authorities would seldom be enough to gauge the hard, hazardous and allied real life problems of soldiers. The commission should evolve and recommend an ‘X’ factor compensation for distressing service conditions that haunt personnel in the line of duty. Some of the ‘X’ factor determinants are: (a) around the clock/unspecified hours of duty (b) social isolation (c) emotional and physical separation from wife, children/other family members, (d) helplessness of the service to spare an individual for leave as per his requirement due to exigencies (e) insulation of soldiers from fundamental rights like freedom of speech, expression and so on. Leave in services is a privilege as opposed to a right in the civil sector. To review the existing payscales is, of course, the prerogative of the Pay Commission. A substantive revision would ensure that a career in the Army moves northwards on the professional graph of priority for quality Indian youth. Members of the pay commission should not despise the aspirations of soldiers. Their counterparts in MNCs/PSUs, are also on the rise. They seek to shed the persona non grata status. Men in uniform are aspirants for elevation in the precedence, power and standing in civil society. Money is the barometer for all that. Quality of life in the services should be upgraded. Measures can include: (a) provision of free rail/bus journey everytime a soldier and his dependents travel to his home station (both ways), (b) encashment of unavailed portion of annual, casual leave and furlough without stipulation of maximum number of days, (c) exemption of salary from income tax, (d) fully furnished, free, quality married and single accommodation (fitted with ACs/air coolers, refrigerators, cooking gas, telephone, curtains, mattresses etc.) and (e) post retirement benefits/ concessions and avenues should be liberally revisited. Study leave being granted to officers has a scope for further rationalisation. The provision should be extended to PBORs as well. It would be prudent to treat assorted curriculum falling under the category of study leave as army courses. All ranks should be nominated to undergo these courses at a given juncture of their service. Army wives are generally well qualified. Due to frequent moves of their spouses to far flung areas, they are unable to pursue a career and earn extra money. Besides, by tradition, their involvement in regimental and service activities is obligatory. Services thus harvest the dedication of two individuals. In the resurgent environment of high economic growth in India, it is incumbent on the part of the Pay Commission, this time, to fulfill the aspirations of the country’s valiant defence
forces. |
|
On Record
Increasing incidents of corporal punishment recently prompted the newly set up National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to send a directive to state governments to take effective steps to check incidents of corporal punishment in schools. In her communique to chief secretaries of states and UTs, NCPCR Chairperson Shantha Sinha maintained that all forms of corporal punishment were a fundamental breach of human rights and asked the states to intimate the action taken within two months. In an interview with The Sunday Tribune, Sinha, a political science Professor from the University of Hyderabad, explains the rationale behind the directive. Excerpts: Q: What should state governments do to protect child rights? A: The NCPCR wants the state governments to create a conducive atmosphere to safeguard children from punishment. We want the education department of all states to ensure that children are informed through campaigns and publicity drives that they have a right to speak out against corporal punishment and bring it to the notice of the authorities. They should have the confidence to protest and not accept punishment as commonplace in the school. Schools have been given two months time. Q: What steps have you proposed that schools take? A: All schools, besides hostels, shelter homes and other public institutions meant for children must have a forum where children can express their views. These institutions can take the help of NGOs for facilitating such an exercise. There should be a complaint box where children can drop their complaints, even if anonymous, in each school. There should be a monthly meeting of PTAs or any other body to review the complaints and take action. The PTAs are to be encouraged to act immediately on any complaint made by children without postponement of the issue and waiting for a more grave injury to be caused. Parents as well as children are to be empowered to speak against corporal punishment without any fear that it would have an adverse effect on the children’s participation in schools. Q: What prompted the need for such guidelines? A: That children have rights and they need to be respected as individuals is as yet not part of public discourse. It is precisely because of this that there have been instances of violence in schools, both government and private. A young boy died in a school in Rajasthan and there were news reports about children being subjected to electric shocks to discipline them elsewhere. There have been reports on prevalence of corporal punishment in schools and public institutions in our country, which are quite shocking. A Pan International India report recently voiced concern that children were dropping out of schools and the cause was their inability to cope with corporal punishment. Some NGOs have conducted studies in Andhra Pradesh that show that corporal punishment in government and private schools was going unchecked. Q: What about discipline? A: There is a difference between punishment and positive discipline. Certainly, you have to correct a child if necessary but there are ways and means to do so. As far as physical violence is concerned, it is totally unacceptable. One cannot be allowed to play with a child’s life, dignity and rights. There is no way a child’s rights can be taken for granted. Q: The problem also is of too many children and too few teachers. A: Too many children and too few teachers or classrooms is no reason to inflict corporal punishment. By taking it out on a weaker party – children – neither teachers’ rights nor children’s rights are protected. Q: Don’t you think that such measures can prompt children to make complaints even at the smallest provocation? A: No, I don’t think so. The purpose of this guideline is to sensitise teachers and build a tradition of respecting children. I am sure teachers will agree that under such an atmosphere children will not be prompted to make complaints. There are exemplary schools and teachers that have been able to build a school culture where children’s rights are protected. Such teachers have been innovative and creative instead of resorting to punishment. I believe that this is possible. We only need to emulate them. Q: Does NCPCR have any legal or other powers to take action against violators? A: The Commission has all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure. |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Dhrupad
Corruption today poses a grave challenge to our system and it is time the nation began to determinedly combat this menace.
I don’t like the way I am being accused; my job is to be in front of the camera and work in films. That’s the only job I know.
We are a young nation. More importantly, we are a nation of young people. Once unleashed, the energy of our growth will drive India on to a new growth path.
Whatever is stated in the Hyde Act is not binding on us. How they (the US) deal with it is their
problem.