 |
Friday,
January 3, 2003, Chandigarh, India  
|
Of educational reforms War clouds over 2003
HARI JAISINGH |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Men are still in control, but only remotely!
Malaysia: test for secularism
Time to woo India: major
think tanks tell Bush
|
Of educational reforms There is no justification for highly subsidised higher education when most students can easily pay for it. This is, perhaps, the most significant point stressed by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee while inaugurating the golden jubilee celebrations of the University Grants Commission in New Delhi on December 28. He is right in saying that most students these days spend on private tuitions and as pocket money many times more than their college or university fees. Thus, they should not mind paying the actual cost, if not more, of the education they receive. This will help the institutions of higher learning to improve their financial position, which is quite precarious with the state support getting reduced in this era of privatisation. As the Prime Minister has hinted, the Union
Government may come out with new rules and regulations, forcing the universities and colleges to generate their own resources, almost 100 per cent, for their survival. One also gets this impression from his another remark — the University Grants Commission should be rechristened as the University Education Development Commission. The provision of official grants should, no doubt, be a thing of the past. However, the truth is that whenever efforts have been made by any institution to revise its fee structure and other charges, it has had to face protests mainly on two counts. One, those students who come from a poor family background will be deprived of higher education as a result of any hefty increase in the university and college fees. Most of them are talented seekers of knowledge and are products of government schools. Two, people in general have developed a mindset which prevents them from adjusting to any sudden rise in the university fees and other charges. The authorities should first create the necessary climate and then go in for the required hike in a gradual manner. This is not a bad logic. But the time cannot be very long, as these institutions are faced with a serious resource crunch. The objection concerning the future of poor students is the most serious matter. An overwhelming majority of the country’s population is poverty-stricken. No scheme can be successful without properly taking care of the interests of this large section. Educational experts are of the opinion that this is the responsibility of the government, and the institutions concerned should not suffer for it. The government should devise a suitable scheme to help the poor. The universities and colleges should be left free to find their own method for generating the funds they need. They can improve their academic standards only when they are in a financially sound position. The logic, as somebody said the other day, is that the students paying for their education will demand the value for their money. The teachers, therefore, will have to satisfy their students, and there will be an increased interest in learning from both sides. This may lead to quality education, badly missing in our institutions. But nothing is possible unless there is rationalisation of the salaries paid to the university and college teachers. One fails to understand why nobody talks of different pay scales for the teachers belonging to special streams like engineering, sciences and management. This is how the cream of the student community can be attracted to the teaching profession, so essential for ensuring quality education. |
|
War clouds over 2003 The year 2002 has come and gone and yet most of the pledges US President George W. Bush had made in his first State of the Union address on January 29 last year remain unfulfilled. The year 2003 has begun on a gloomy note with North Korea cocking a snook at the super power. However, North Korea is not Iraq. Geo-political compulsions have invariably forced the USA to tread carefully while responding to the nuclear threat from the South-East Asian nation. On January 29, 2002, President Bush had pledged to rout terrorism around the globe. Has he succeeded in doing so? He had warned Iraq, Iran and North Korea of dire consequences if they did not give up their nuclear weapons programme. Did the warning make President Bush’s “axis of evil” tremble with fear and fall in line? The globe continues to be as insecure as it was after 9\11. Instead of finding demons elsewhere, the US Administration should do a spot of introspection to locate the source of most global conflicts in its flawed foreign policy perspective. The threat of global conflict from North Korea is as serious as it is from Iraq. But, according to the USA, the North Korean development needs deft diplomatic handling whereas military action is the only option left for teaching Iraq a lesson. Really? The war clouds hovering over Iraq will not spare the global economy. According to US chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, a conflict with Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. Other American economists say that the official figures hide the real cost of the likely war with Iraq. It will devastate the global financial systems and the war-related damages could cross $1.6 trillion. Developing economies, including India, will have to bear the brunt of President’s Bush’s flawed Iraq policy. The emerging global scenario will test India’s diplomatic skills as never before. The decision to stand by Iraq is not going to make President Bush change his mind. He will not make alterations in the roadmap that is expected to help America gain strategic control over oil sources in West Asia merely to please India. The collapse of the Soviet Union has affected India more than any other South Asian country. Its puny neighbours do not take it seriously. Imagine a situation that gives India the option to call the shots. What would be its approach to dealing with countries that are a threat to global peace. Exactly the reverse of the one being followed by the USA. It would have taken serious note of the nuclear programme of North Korea and mounted global pressure for military action against it, particularly because of its diabolical “weapons of mass destruction” partnership with Pakistan. And just as American lawmen enter South American countries for dragging out and trying leaders involved in serious crimes like funding narco-terrorism, India too would have made South Asia a region of peace by smoking out leaders involved in promoting and patronising global terrorist outfits. However, as of today, the whip is in the hands of just one country that believes that the North Korean crisis needs deft diplomatic handling as does Pakistan that has made sending terrorist groups to India a part of its state policy. And there is nothing that India can do to make the super power revise its foreign policy for ushering in lasting global peace. |
Beyond the Ladakh initiative Apart from the failure to counter terrorism in the state decisively and ruthlessly, Jammu and Kashmir's has been a typical case of gross mismanagement and poor house-keeping. The successive regimes in Srinagar are as much responsible for creating the mess as have been the insensitivity and callous attitudes of various governments at the Centre. There have never been serious attempts to tackle the state's problems in a coordinated manner and in totality. It so happens that the people have been bearing the brunt of repeated mistakes and follies on the part of various leaders. In the recent Assembly elections the people voted to power the People's Democratic Party (PDP)-Congress alliance headed by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. How the new setup will conduct itself in the months ahead is difficult to say at this juncture. For, the problems of the state are so complex that these cannot be solved with a magic wand. What is important in handling men, matters and issues in the state is not only the clarity of thought and sincerity of efforts but also a dogged determination and political will to take things to logical conclusions. Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is still groping in the dark, at least on the question of tackling the highly complex issue of militancy. His views and emotions are divided. He often gives the impression of standing on two stools—one right in the camp of militant groups and other on the side of "national mainstream". It is quite an acrobatic feat to come out of this tricky situation without getting hurt in the process. He has, of course, shown some signs of promises. His latest decision to empower the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) is a major step forward to meet legitimate aspirations of the people there. The new council will have financial powers up to Rs 5 crore for development initiatives without obtaining clearance from the government in Srinagar. This should satisfy the Lamas since they have been agitating for a Union Territory status for Ladakh since 1982. The Leh stir assumed disturbing overtones in 1987-88 when the sling-wielding agitators attacked Kashmiri traders and transporters. Their ire was against what the Buddhists called Kashmiri domination in government services, trade, transport, tourism and other socio-economic sectors in the region. The Ladakh region has, for all practical purposes, remained under administrative control of the powers that be in Srinagar. For instance, the Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir was the head of the administrative pyramid right from the valley to the entire Ladakh region, which has an area of over 58,999 sq km. There was also resentment against the Kashmiri domination in the Shia-dominated Kargil district. The Kargilites, however, never supported the demand for giving a Union Territory status to Ladakh. They, therefore, kept away from the agitation spearheaded by the Ladakh Buddhist Association. In 1995 under the Governor's rule, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi conceded the Buddhists' demand for the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Kargil was left out as the authorities thought that the Kargilites wished to remain with the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley. The rise of militancy in the valley in 1989 spurted the demand for the vivisection of the state, and the formation of regional councils. Initially, the demand was confined to the establishment of regional councils for the valley, Jammu and Ladakh. But with the passage of time, the demand for providing state status to the Jammu region gained momentum as the people nursed the feeling that they have received a raw deal from the successive state governments. In fact, the Jammu issue was exploited by several political parties, including the BJP, the State Morcha and the Panthers Party during the 2002 Assembly poll. As for the then ruling National Conference, it was against any move for the empowerment of the LAHDC. In any case, the demand for trifurcation of the state, setting up of regional councils and separation of the valley from India have had their echoes in the state. But, interestingly, Kashmiri Hindu migrants raised a demand for a separate state within the valley under the central administration! Amidst these regional pulls and pressures in the state, cultural and ethnic diversities do stand out. During his address to the Constituent Assembly in 1950, Sheikh Abdullah, first Prime Minister of the state, said "the future political set-up for Jammu and Kashmir must also take into consideration the existence of various sub-national groups in our state. Although culturally diverse, history has forged an uncommon unity among them: they all are pulsating with the same hopes and aspirations, sharing in each others' joys and sorrows. While guaranteeing the basic unity of the state, our constitution must not permit the concentration of power and privileges in the hands of any particular group or territorial region." Over the years power and privileges have, however, remained concentrated in the hands of a section of people of one region—Kashmir. That is the reason why the trifurcation demand has surfaced time and again. At a later stage the National Conference, headed by Dr Farooq Abdullah, became aware of the simmering regional tension. To dilute it, his government constituted a committee to suggest measures for regional autonomy. Surprisingly, the panel sought division of the state in eight regions! This was treated by analysts and political leaders as an attempt to divide the state on communal and religious lines. For instance, the committee had recommended that the Muslim-dominated Poonch and Rajouri should become part of one region while the Hindu-dominated Jammu and Kathua be part of Udhampur district as another zone. Mercifully, nothing of the sort happened. Now with the empowerment of the LAHDC and the Ladakh-type council for Kargil, one major question has cropped up. That is, when autonomous councils have been established for Leh and Kargil districts, having a population of 2.35 lakh, what does the government propose to do for the Jammu region having a population of over 43.87 lakh? This issue can no longer be overlooked since the demand for a hill development council for Doda district and the one for Poonch-Rajouri districts has started surfacing in the state. The only option with the government is to set up two regional councils, one for the Jammu region and the other for the Kashmir valley, so that devolution of financial and political powers to the grassroots becomes a reality. Once this is conceded, the cry for statehood to Jammu may not gain ground. However, care has to taken to ensure that regional councils should not become the cause of disintegration of the state. The main thrust in the state must be on socio-economic development. This can happen if one believes what Mr Thuptsan Chewang, Chief Executive Councillor, says. According to him, soon after the formation of the LAHDC, the district of Leh witnessed a number of economic changes. A number of development projects got completed and that too when the LAHDC was "toothless." At the same time, there is no guarantee that the demand for state status for Jammu will die down. This is evident from the way several Buddhist leaders have reacted while welcoming the empowerment of the LAHDC. They have made it clear that the demand for Union Territory status for Ladakh is not yet "dead". Those who support the formation of regional councils or granting of statehood to Jammu on the plea that it will resolve the Kashmir turmoil or dilute the demand for the restoration of greater autonomy are mistaken. The turmoil in Kashmir, which has also got extended to the Jammu region, is not linked with regional councils. Nor will it put an end to regional discrimination. Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani has said in Jammu that the key to peace in Kashmir depends on the intentions and attitude of Pakistan. Some analysts believe that the people's feeling of "alienation" will disappear through regional councils. This is not possible. All the same, it is necessary to make the setting less attractive to the militants by decentralising power among the three regions—the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh. Once the militants and their sympathisers have seen that their diktats are being effectively bypassed by people under the autonomous councils, their tendency to stick their neck out in favour of Pakistan will diminish. Indeed, the success of the policy will depend on how we strengthen the councils in the fields of economic development, finance and employment generation. In any case, it is crucial to break the backbone of militancy. Unless the fear of the gun is removed, we will never know the right choice of the people. |
Men are still in control, but only remotely! In the last five years women have been seizing power in all institutions of our society. They are joining the Indian Army, running big companies, reading news on TV, trying criminal cases involving big personalities, getting ulcers and having heart attacks just like we men folk have for years. That is fine with me, since it is a proven fact that in most households, it is the wife who rules the chequebook, the kitchen and the wardrobe. If you don’t believe me watch Balaaji’s prime time serials. In short, all of us real men are having to adjust to the fact that women are ruling the world. And they are demanding more. But despite these advances we men still control the single most important source of power in most homes in urban India. Yes, we men still hold our powerful masculine hands on the TV remote control. Is it not a fact that men are twice as likely as women to hold the remote control in India’s households? I suggest MARG to carry out a nationwide survey on this issue. The findings of such a survey on this aspect of modern homes could be more shocking than the comparison between actual results of our General Elections and the pre-poll predictions of our popular immaculately dressed psephologists. There could also be a big surprise for the pollsters, social scientists and women organisations. Such a survey could also raise a provocative sociological question: Why is it that we men are willing to give up political and financial power to women, but steadfastly refuse to turn over to women a small plastic instrument that would allow them to change the channel from ESPN to Ekta Kapoor? The answer, of course, is that the fundamental genetic difference between men and women is that we men have the attention span of a cockroach. For example, when my wife watches television, she has the annoying habit of watching one programme at a time. Moreover, she insists on watching one programme from the beginning to its conclusion. She spent the entire year of 2001 and most of year 2002 watching the blockbuster Balaaji serial Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki. On the other hand, when I watch television, I view as many as 47 programmes on a single evening. I watch some of these programmes for as long as three to four seconds at a time. I just sit in my bed and aim the remote at the screen and push the remote buttons every few seconds as if I were a super cop shooting bad guys. I have no interest whatsoever in watching an entire programme. I just want to surf across the cable waves and get an occasional glimpse of Rajdeep Sardesai, Madhuri Dixit, Tulsi Veerani, Shekhar Sumun, Anu Kapoor, Shakira, Wesley Snipes, Harbhajan Mann and Aamir Khan. Well, I am no Male Chauvinistic Pig. I am an open minded person. I would be more than happy to have a woman as the Chief of Indian Army, Ninetynine per cent women in the Lok Sabha and a State Police Force comprising of only women. But let me make one thing very clear. I will give up the control of my TV when they pry my cold dead fingers off the remote!!! |
Malaysia: test for secularism All is not well with Malaysia. Fundamentalism threatens its future. There have been communal clashes. Even murders of Indians. Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida is very much a presence. Very little has been done to avert a catastrophe. The consequence can be disastrous for Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. The world is watching. Muslims constitute 53 per cent of the country’s population. Chinese come a close second with 35 per cent. And Indians have a share of 11-12 per cent. There is no Muslim country in the world with such a mixed polity. Political control rests with the Malays. But the economy is under Chinese control. As for Indians, they have remained backward. This is not conducive to harmony. The immigration of Malays began long ago. Today they call themselves Bhoomiputras (sons of the soil). They are part of the Malay race to be found all over South-East Asia. They are Muslims. They have made Islam the state religion. Was it right to make it so? Definitely not, when half the population is non-Muslim. The Chinese and Indians too are immigrants. They came during the 19th century to work in rubber plantations. So did many Sumatrans enter Malaya to work in plantations. The Malaysian economy is largely a creation of the Chinese and Indians. During the first millennium of the Christian era, Malaya was under the influence of Indian civilisation. Even its name came from Hindu Kingdom of Sumatra. The Cholas held political sovereignty over at least part of the territories which now constitute Malaysia and Indonesia. The whole of South-East Asia was either Hindu or Buddhist. Islam was late to arrive in the region. It came with Arab traders, not through conquest. Which explains why there was little destruction of the original civilisation of the region. The Arab traders were responsible for the first conversions. Indian Muslims also had a hand in the Islamisation of the region. As in the rest of South East Asia, the Malay Chinese took to commerce. Today they have a near monopoly of the retail trade. They control 75-80 per cent of the economy. This has caused much heart-burning among the Malays, who are mostly agriculturists. Ever since Malaysia’s independence, it has been the policy of its governments to promote the interests of the Malays. The plea is that they are backward. This has led to gross discrimination against other communities. If there had not been a revolt, it is because the Chinese and Indians are more tolerant. The Chinese follow a mixture of Confucian-Buddhist-Taoist religions. This, of course, puzzles foreigners. But the Chinese have a ready answer to this: they say “all the three cannot be right, but one must be so.” They could not have been more pragmatic. The Chinese are unsentimental, secretive and clannish. Their long civilisation gives them self-confidence. The Indians, drawn from the lowest strata of Indian society in South India, were either working in plantations or in the Railways. Today they prefer to work in urban centres. But most of them are to be found doing menial jobs. The Malays are a volatile people, given to run amok (by the way, “amok” is a Malay word), which makes the growth of fundamentalism rather dangerous. Already, there had been clashes with the minority communities. In short, here are three communities with nothing in common among them. That is not their fault. Nor is it the fault of the Chinese if their staple food is pork, which is anathema to orthodox Muslims. The three communities are ignorant of each other and uninterested in each other. They hardly inter-mingle or inter-marry. In fact, the Malays are given to inbreeding, a point Mahathir Mohammed has deprecated. There is no dialogue among them. Nor is there much economic cooperation. A Chinese, for example, would not buy gas from a Malay-owned filling station. What then have they in common? Just this that they belong to the same country. The Chinese have only contempt for the Malays. Can such disparate people co-exist? They must. There is no other way. Unfortunately, the government had done
little to bring about integration of the three communities. In fact, its policies have only widened the distance between the communities. The government calls the policy of protecting and advancing Malay interests as “constructive protection” or “positive discrimination.” Such discrimination began even in the days of the British. For example, every registered company was obliged to appoint a Malay director. Seventy per cent of the university and college seats are reserved for Malays. The Chinese are ready to have their own universities. But the government has disallowed it. The army and paramilitary forces are almost always recruited from the Malay population. And in the civil service, the ratio is four Malay to one non-Malay. Only the Malay can own land in most of the states of the country. The situation is rather explosive. It is clear that this is no democratic country. And there is no equality here before the law. The Chinese and Indians now vote for the opposition. But the opposition is dominated by Malays. Fundamentalism appeals to the Malays because there are too many non-Malays in the country. Already, they have taken to talibanisation. Veil, which was never used by women, is now universal. Dancing and singing are now frowned upon. Malaysia is a test case. Will it follow the policy of secularism and allow the minorities to live and flourish? Malaysia has the resources to be a rich nation. But secularism is taboo to orthodox Islam. In fact, secularism is considered the greatest enemy of Islam as it creates, it is said, its own value system. Turkey, the last secular Muslim country, has just voted for an Islamist party. If, however, pressure is put on non-Muslims to convert or if they are driven out, this will not go without a global response. It will prove one thing: that non-Muslims have no place in a Muslim country. As the only Muslim country with a sizeable minority, Malaysia is under watch. It has to prove that it is a home to all. Mahathir Mohammed has been able to keep the mullahs under check. But can his successors cope with the new challenges? Or, will they take the easy option of compromise with fundamentalism? A great deal will depend on what happens in Indonesia. We had already a warning from Bali, where fundamentalists attacked a miniscule Hindu community. Is there any wonder that the Christians of East Timor chose independence from Indonesia? Malaysia has had its warning. |
Time to woo India: major
think tanks tell Bush While US President Bush still continues to view Gen Pervez Musharraf through a “see-no-evil” prism, influential think tanks have started warning him of serious repercussions of this policy. Not only that, they have been advising the administration to forge stronger ties with India instead. These think tanks have had considerable bearing on the formulation of US foreign policy in the past. Writing in the December issue of American Enterprise Institute’s “National Security Outlook”, Thomas Donnelly perceives India as “perhaps the most alluring partner in the coming century”. He bases his assessment on several unique plus points that India happens to have. First and foremost, it is a strong democracy. Not only is India the world’s largest democracy, but it is an increasingly stable one. It also arguably boasts the world’s largest Muslim population — more than 120 million — that is genuinely free. Democracy in Turkey, for instance, is limited in comparison, points out the highly respected defence and security expert. India’s government also has behaved remarkably responsibly over the past year, even at the height of tensions over Kashmir, he acknowledges. The Vajpayee government has seemed to understand the Bush administration’s need for a temporary accommodation with Pakistan. New Delhi’s patience can only buttress its case as a reliable and stable future partner. Moreover, the Indian military is a serious force, not simply on land but in the Indian Ocean. It is saddled with too much Soviet-style equipment, but it has a professional officer corps and is firmly under civilian control. And the “problem” of nuclear weapons in South Asia is overwhelmingly a problem of Pakistan; that is, the real danger is the regime’s instability, not the balance of armaments. As its democracy has deepened, India has become, haltingly, a more decent society. “Today’s India,” observes Ralph Peters in the U.S. Army War College journal Parameters, “is to a far greater degree, the story of the dog that didn’t bark, of the hundreds of millions of Hindus and Muslims (as well as those of other faiths) who do not kill each other and who, despite seductive prejudices, work together as Indians first, whether in the government, in the military, or in business”. President Bush has rightly framed the post-September 11 “war on terrorism” as a struggle to stabilise and democratise the Islamic world. That is an immense undertaking, one clearly intimidating to Europeans. “But their weakness should send us in search of new partners —perhaps beginning in New Delhi but not ending—lest we dance alone,” says Donnelly. This apprehension about “dancing it alone” has come about as a consequence of the souring relationship with her principal Cold War partners across the Atlantic, with perhaps a permanent breakup in the offing. Even if US-European affairs can be patched up, it is time for the Bush administration to play the field and come up with some new geopolitical partners, advise the experts. That is how India appears strongly on the radar screen. And what is the young, fit sole superpower looking for in its new partners? “Like-minded democracies, willing to use military power, even pre-emptively. Turn-offs: rogue regimes, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, ethnic cleansing. Turn-ons: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.” Pakistan just does not come good on this touchstone, especially in the present scenario when the theatre of war stretches from the eastern Mediterranean to Southeast Asia and the struggle promises to last decades. Washington is particularly “starting to turn sour on Islamabad” because of its growing radicalisation. The Bush administration may have consistently courted Musharraf after the September 11 attacks, but the unabashed radicalisation of the Pakistani polity could trigger realignment, says the American Foreign Policy Council. It also sees a “serious strategic partnership” unfolding between the USA and India. The council speaks of Washington’s “real worries that the radical Islamist worldview of groups like the Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, which is supportive of both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, could become the country’s leitmotif”. The heavyweight think tank predicts that with the ongoing transformation, India will join the ranks of American allies like Japan and Singapore and gain eligibility of significant discretionary military assistance. Apart from the upsurge of radical forces in the recent Pakistani elections, the think tank notes that Islamabad’s nuclear nexus with North Korea has become a major sore point with Washington. |
The son commits many faults, The mother does not take them to heart; I am your child, I am your son, Lord will you not pardon my sins? If a child in anger runs and hits his mother, She bears no grudge Nor takes offence; I am your child, I am your son, Lord, will you not pardon my sins? My mind sinks Into a gloom of anxiety: How will I reach The opposite shore Without the power of Nam? I am your child, I am your son, Lord, will you not pardon my sins? Dear Lord, bless Kabir with a pure heart, A clear mind, That he easily attains Sahaj state And becomes absorbed in your virtues I am your child, I am your son, Lord will you not pardon my sins. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Rag Asa, page 478 *** Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. — The Bible, Ephesians 4:32 *** The worst of men are those who will not forgive. — Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 4849 *** Those who believe and do right, for them is forgiveness. — The Quran, Surah, XXXV. 8 *** Verily those who fear their Lord in secret, for them is forgiveness and a great reward. — The Quran, Surah LXVII, 22 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
