Nor can it be said that the failure occurred because of any lack of equipment. The security personnel were armed with the latest technical intelligence aids like thermal imagers and night vision devices. Even helicopters were pressed into service to locate the heavily armed militants who held up so many pursuers for seven days. Senior officers need to analyse the whole episode and own up shortcomings lest they are repeated.

“A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place and time is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other activity. In this sphere, wisdom, which may be defined as the exercise of judgment acting on experience, common sense, and available information, is less operative and more frustrated than it should be. Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?”

It is part of conventional wisdom that 9/11 has transformed America, and through it the rest of the world, in a profound and irrevocable manner. There is also a possibility that the neo-conservatives in the US who had a pre-9/11 agenda exploited the deep hurt and confusion felt by society to advance their own agenda. To facilitate matters further, they propagated the theory that 9/11 had changed everything. Whether that be the case or not, it is time to ask a few questions:

Was the transformation of America for the good of America? Where has the war against terrorism taken human society so far? What were America’s options post-9/11, and did it choose wisely? Did the rest of the world act wisely and responsibly?

When the UN headquarters in Baghdad was blown up (August19, 2003), Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, made an observation that merited more attention than it actually received. She said that the attack should serve as a “wake-up call”. In other words, the United Nations and the member-states should introspect and ask themselves: Why did some individuals or groups have such deep hatred for the UN that they should have done what they did?

Judging by the reaction of the UN Secretary-General and others, it would appear that Mary Robinson’s words were not heeded. The response to the attack in Baghdad has been to condemn those responsible. We all join in condemning the perpetrators, but some of us feel that condemnation by itself does not generate understanding of the ground realities. As a responsible response, mere condemnation is inadequate. It is also necessary to recall that Sergio Vieira de Mello was not the first senior UN official to be assassinated in cold blood. On September 17, 1948, Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN mediator on his way to have tea with the military governor of Jerusalem, was ambushed and shot dead. His “sin” was that he had made recommendations on the status of Jerusalem, recommendations that were not to the liking of the perpetrators of that act of terrorism.

When 9/11 occurred, did the United States do any soul-searching? Alas, none at all. Nor did America’s friends and well-wishers advise it to do so. In fact, such condemnation is so mechanical and ritualistic that it becomes difficult, nay even politically incorrect, to raise certain fundamental questions. There are scores and scores of “experts” on international terrorism, but how many of them have raised the fundamental question: why is there terrorism?

Even as we take note of that serious flaw in America’s response to 9/11, we should commend the US Administration for the competent manner in which it proceeded to track down the terrorists, mobilised international support in order to freeze their funds, intercept the communications, and to bring to justice those apprehended. But, looking back, the US has over-reacted and exceeded the limits of good sense and legality in many respects. We will make only two points. Firstly, the manner in which the people incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay have been treated has tainted America’s well- deserved reputation as an exemplary democracy where the rule of law applies to all.

The second regrettable development has been the assault on the liberties of ordinary Americans. We all realise that it is not easy to find the right balance between the individual’s rights and the requirements of security in a society under threat from terrorists.

Let us compare terrorism to an ailment afflicting society. Suppose a doctor were to administer a medicine that aggravates the disease, should we not tell the doctor to have a second look at the diagnosis and prescription? The key question that should be uppermost in our minds is: is the America-led war against terror succeeding? If not, why not?

We all know that the US has mobilised enormous resources, material and human, to put an end to terrorism. In September 2001, the US Administration asked for and was given $ 40 billion for “emergency spending”. As many as 4000 persons were put on the job of chasing 50,000 leads. A quarter of the FBI’s 11,500 employees have been deployed. Yet, the sad fact is that the Americans do not feel secure. In February 2003, fearing an imminent attack, the US placed anti-aircraft missile batteries in Washington, and the UK’s Blair government deployed troops at Heathrow airport. There is no need to catalogue the attacks in various parts of the world. The attack in Najaf, Iraq, killing over 100 people, is only the latest in a painfully long series.

To understand the US-led war on terror, we should start with the American definition of terrorism. The CIA website gives the following: The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f (d):

“— The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

“— The term ‘international terrorism’ means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

“— The term ‘terrorist group’ means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.”

What is excluded, deliberately so , from this definition is state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism such as Israel’s “targeted assassinations”. Any analyst who is blind to Israel’s state terrorism will lamentably fail to understand the context and the raison d’etre of terrorist acts by Hamas and others. Anyone, including governments, who fails to condemn the terrorism of Hamas and of the state of Israel in the same breath is taking an indefensibly partisan view, to put it mildly. Anyone who holds such a partisan view will not be able to contribute towards a resolution of the complex issues involved.

The US has sadly deviated from its founding principles in the current war on terror, in invading and occupying Iraq, and in threatening Syria, Iran and North Korea. As intelligent global citizens, it is incumbent on us to see the big picture, and only by looking carefully and clearly at that big picture shall we be able to understand the roots of terrorism. And then only will we be able to treat the disease as opposed to its symptoms.

It will be wrong to blame the US alone for the wrong turning taken by the war on terrorism. America gave the lead, but those who followed it unquestioningly, suspending or distrusting their better judgment, are equally to blame. But the task before us is not to apportion blame. We should do what is right and proper, fearlessly and with calm determination. As the Bible says: “Where there is no vision, people perish.” It is high time we opened our eyes.

The more I see and experience the present world, the more I am convinced of the beauty and truth of the world gone by. I now recognise and endorse those very beliefs, which were handed down to me.

I inherited a belief that no life was more satisfactory than one of rendering service to other. This meant a sacrifice of personal petty gains. This also meant the courage to stand up for one’s convictions.

I also inherited a belief that all men are equals and should be treated as such. Faith is a state of the mind and the soul. In this sense it is the union of God with soul.

The language of religion is a set of formulas, which register a basic spiritual experience. It must not be regarded as reality, which can be dissected with cool clinical logic.

However, there was a time when my father tried his best to instil the good and philosophy of the Arya Samaj. And I tried my best to counter it and rejected it. Today, I feel that he was right, I was wrong. Hence, I am “shamed” in accepting his rightness.

Here is an anecdote. Soon after partition, we lived in Mustafa Manzil, Ambala Cantt, which later housed The Tribune (if my memory does not trick me).

The rich house was ransacked and plundered by all and sundry. I sneaked out of the quarter at night, stole a typewriter and returned hot foot to hide it under a bed.

My father found it out next morning, called me to his side, and questioned me about it. When truth trembled out of my reluctant mouth, he delivered a thundering slap on my cheek. It left its impression on my cheek, the incident on my memory.

I was ordered to place the “booty” back from where I had “looted” it.

I sincerely endorse his convictions without any compulsions. To my mind, this is fundamental to anybody’s maturity of the mind.

The ideals, which dominated my early days are now fully harmonised, and adjusted and anchored to a stable world inside me.

Pinpricks from petty people, back-stabbing, lure of filthy lucre, do not disturb my inner tranquillity. I have trusted people. And I have been betrayed. But I continue to trust people.

This is essential to live a life of usefulness in harmony with my ownself and as a member of the community. I have discovered that the answer lies in what was drilled into my head at school in Lahore, and later at D.A.V. School, Shimla.

Self-surrender is the way to self-realisation. In singleness of mind, I find strength to say yes to every demand of duty. It is an overflowing of this strength, which I feel filled when dealing with “lepers” of society.

This strength finds natural expressions in a fulfilment of duty. It is an unreserved acceptance of life. It may bring toil, suffering or happiness. I accept it.

Today, more than ever, I realise that my father and his convictions about the laws of inner life and of action have not lost their significance or meaning. Rather, the more I see the world around me, the more relevant those ideals and values look dear and indispensable to me.

The land of scam serials, violence, hatred, killings, grabbing, give-me, needs a look at ancient values.

The university has got a talented and committed faculty. The Vice-Chancellor, Dr S.S. Negi, is himself a scientist of international repute. Prior to his appointment at Nauni, he was the Director-General of Bangalore’s Indian Horticulture Research Institute. The faculty’s technical competence is reflected in several path-breaking achievements that it has made in the introduction and evaluation of germplasm of fruits and vegetable crops. Dr K.K. Jindal, the university’s Director (Research) says, preventing the premature fall of leaves from apple trees and tackling the apple scab disease are its latest success stories.

If Himachal is called the “fruit bowl of the country” today, the credit should necessarily go to the Nauni team of scientists and researchers. Dr Y.S. Parmar, Himachal’s first Chief Minister, is the founder of the university. It was after a world tour in 1975 that Dr Parmar thought of setting up the university with a view to increasing horticultural production in his state in particular and in the country in general. In this task, he was assisted by experts such as Dr D.R. Thakur, former Dean, College of Agriculture, and Dr P.K. Khosla, presently Senior Scientific Adviser (Biotechnology), Himachal Pradesh Government. Dr Khosla, who was instrumental in starting the forest faculty at Nauni, and others had provided the professional thrust to Dr Parmar’s vision of a university of horticulture and forestry.

The university had a chequered career ever since its inception in 1985. The colleges of horticulture and forestry, even while maintaining their identity, were combined to form the university. In addition, it has a well-established Directorate of Extension Education whose regional and satellite stations are spread over various parts of the state representing different climatic zones. With the passage of time, the winds of change had begun to affect its functioning. The past five years were especially critical in its growth and performance. Resource crunch has severely hit its functioning.

Organised on the modified pattern of the ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research) Model Act, 70 per cent of the funds that the university gets from the state government goes for footing the wage bill of the staff. The remaining 30 per cent that is used for research activities comes from agencies such as the ICAR, and Dehra Dun’s Indian Council for Forest Research and Education .

Things started getting worse after Mr Prem Kumar Dhumal’s government had expressed its helplessness in releasing funds because of its problems. Vice-Chancellor Negi, however, does not see any political motive behind this. He says whenever he had sought funds for the university, the then Finance Secretary to the state government, Mr S.K. Sood, used to tell him: “Yours is a monthly problem, but ours is a daily problem.” Though Dr Negi says that there is no fund problem for 2003-04, he refers to Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh’s oft-repeated statement that the state has a debt of Rs 13,000 crore!

There have been reports of financial irregularities. In its report (July 2003), the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India had pointed out lapses in the appointment of daily wage workers despite the government ban, secretarial allowance to some employees, house rent allowance, and on vehicles. It is said that the authorities had paid no heed to some of the objections raised by the Local Audit Department (LAD). The LAD says that the university is “fully dependent” on the grants and that its income from its own sources is “negligible”. Further, it observes that though effective utilisation of 1,375 acre of fertile land can fetch very good income, only 375 acre has been brought under cultivation which, too, did not yield good results. Phase-wise plantation could have brought sufficient earning to the university. Excessive manpower and technical expertise could have been properly utilised to raise income from floriculture, seed production, the nursery, the dairy farm, etc.

Some officials claim that because of the efforts of Mr Vinod Gupta, the then Deputy Controller, LAD, temporary advances which stood at Rs 3,65,61,039 as on March 31, 2001, could be reduced to Rs 1,88,12,709 as on June 7, 2003. They say that because of his role in pin-pointing these lapses, Mr Gupta was peremptorily repatriated to the state government. But Dr Negi says Mr Gupta was more of a problem than of any help during his deputation. He is accused of leaking information to the Press even before matters were discussed officially. Moreover, he was often camping in Shimla rather than at Nauni. Work was suffering and the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary (Finance) had to be told to shift Mr Gupta to Shimla.

The Vice-Chancellor says that it was mainly because of his (Dr Negi’s) concerted efforts that utmost economy was exercised on all spendings during 2002-03 and expenditure was brought down. The deficit under the state sector, which was Rs 379.63 lakh at the end of the financial year 2001-02, was brought down to Rs 264.43 lakh as on March 31, 2003, due to expenditure compression. Efforts were also made to generate more domestic income. During 2002-03, the university generated a domestic income of Rs 316.36 lakh as against the total income of Rs 242.03 lakh during 2001-02. The income generated during 2002-03 was about 14 per cent of the total expenditure. This, he says, is a record as the university has surpassed the 10 per cent target recommended by the Indian Association of Agricultural Universities. Most agricultural universities generate a domestic income of hardly 6 to 7 per cent.

Dr Negi says he resolved the water problem in the campus and charged power tariff at the domestic rate. He also stopped the diversion of funds from research to other sectors. Though his achievements cannot be overlooked, the picture is not all that rosy. Sadly, research in the university has suffered because of the shrinking budget. About five years back, the library was subscribing to as many as 300 national and international journals. Now this figure is reduced to 34 (bought from ICAR funds). The budget allocation from the state grants under contingencies has been negligible. ICAR assistance too has been inadequate. Though the library needs Rs 60 lakh for the procurement of reading material every year, it does not get even Rs 15 lakh.

According to Deputy Librarian Dr M.S. Pathania, the consortium approach, as suggested at Hyderabad’s all-India conference of agricultural universities’ librarians recently, may have worked in the West but not in India because of the typical attitude of people. Moreover, there are practical difficulties in information sharing among universities. “How will the consortium approach succeed when our friends in other universities do not respond to our e-mail even for months?”, asks Dr Pathania. The university has got two CD-Roms — Hort CD and Tree CD — worth Rs 1.7 lakh each. But they provide only abstracts of articles published in journals of horticulture and forestry. Moreover, most of the computers installed in the library have become obsolete and need immediate replacement.

Research scholars and students are a worried lot. They say that most of the ongoing projects are in non-vocational areas. Even in those which have a vocational focus, prospects of employment seem bleak. Because of the government ban there has been no recruitment in the university for the past six years. This has affected the morale of the students, especially of those completing post-graduation and Ph.D.

On top of all this is the uncertainty over the extension of the National Agriculture Technology Project (NATP) beyond December 31, 2003. The first mandate of the university is R&D. Has the university evolved alternative strategies like starting new rural projects to absorb the present research pool if the NATP is not extended? The students pin high hopes on Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh. However, it remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to raise the reservation limit for the university’s forestry graduates for the post of Forest Ranger from 70 to 100 per cent.

The university is facing three major problems. The first is inbreeding. It has a highly qualified and motivated faculty, with 95 per cent of the members being Ph.Ds, but their exposure to the areas outside Himachal Pradesh is very limited. According to an analysis by the university, 84 per cent of the faculty belongs to Himachal Pradesh while 63 per cent have done their doctorate either from Nauni or other universities in the state.

To stop inbreeding and promote better exposure, the ICAR has suggested that a student must obtain at least one degree — B.Sc, M.Sc or Ph.D — from another university. Dr A. R. Bhandari, Dean (Forestry), says that the ICAR has stipulated 25 per cent reservation in the various positions of agricultural universities for candidates outside the state. The United States has successfully checked the problem of inbreeding. According to him, in the US, a doctorate degree holder is barred from applying for a post in the same university for five years with a view to helping the candidate to do hard work and prove his/her worth outside before returning to his/her parent university.

Secondly, teaching and research programmes are fully dependent on nature. The protected cultivation technology is still in its infancy and weather plays a crucial role in the success of horticultural crops. The research fails to address the problem of the widening gap between experimental demonstration and actual farm yield. Dr Jagmohan Singh, Dean (Horticulture) and Director (Extension), says that while mechanisation is possible in the plains, it is difficult in hilly areas because of the topography, a limited operational area, location-specific problems and small land-holdings. He, however, stesses the point that the university will have to strive to reduce its dependence on nature. Researchers will have to focus attention on post-harvest technology.

Thirdly, the traditional approaches followed in production, protection and post-harvest handling and marketing of horticultural produce leave little room for modernisation and upgradation of research and teaching infrastructure. The slow pace of modernisation is affecting the teaching and research programmes.