 |
|
Educator
as academic Profile |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear
deal demystified On Record Bansi
Lal: Architect of Haryana
|
Educator as academic
There
was a time when academics were primarily educators. They were not content with what went on in the classroom alone but strove to make positive interventions in the lives of their wards. Their motivating factor was concern and their target was the entire human being. Then, for various reasons, the academic and the educator came to be separated. The academic came to be perceived as a higher being than the educator. Now, to be an academic is the ambition of most luckless souls who have not managed to get into management, finance, administration or fashion. To aspire to be an educator is to reveal the triviality of one’s ambition. Among the few who look to ‘teaching’ as a career, it is teaching in a college or a university — never in a school — perhaps because it is believed that it is in colleges and universities that academics congregate, while schools need educators. Thus, gone are the days when educators held durbars in canteens, under the trees, on the bus stops. Now we have the academic who may well be likened to a ‘hit-and-run-artist’. He rushes into the classroom (generally late because he was giving finishing touches to the latest book that must meet the publishers deadline); deluges the students with the most brilliant lecture, frowns on any hapless creature who reveals his/her intellectual poverty by daring to ask a question, rushes off the moment the time is over because he is already late for the seminar that he must attend which will give him an opportunity to be invited to the next one which is being held in some exotic location abroad. This ‘hit-and-run-artist’ leaves behind a host of bleeding victims who do not know where to turn to for succor and help. Such victims would indeed be lucky if in the faculty there survives an old-fashioned educator. She will not only tend to the victims, take them to the canteen or even her own home, feed the body and the soul, laugh and joke with them (a serious anathema to the academic who believes in the “High Seriousness of Study”), and in general seek to get involved in the fundamentals of her pupils’ life and concerns. Thus, an academic addresses the HCF (Highest Common Factor) of academic ability in his class whereas the educator caters to the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator). To use a cliché, while the academic seeks to cover the syllabus, the educator’s attempt is to uncover it. No wonder, therefore, that an academic has no use for his students outside the classroom while for the educator the entire world of her pupil is her classroom. (One particularly vexing aspect of this academic-educator divide is that there are many who are neither fish nor fowl. They are a species apart, parasitical in temperament, contagious in nature, habitat unknown, and unfortunately on the increase. They demand an entirely separate attempt at appreciation). The heavy emphasis on an ‘academic’ approach to education has effectively curbed the educator’s point of view. The unfortunate consequences of such a situation just cannot be missed. There is the inordinate emphasis on acquiring skills and information with the corresponding inability to find ways to translate these skills and information into knowledge and wisdom. This is seen in the absence of any mechanism to address the basic issue about what constitutes ‘good education’. While there may be indices (however unsatisfactory) to determine the literacy levels that a candidate has attained, there is no mechanism for indicating the educational attainments of a student in terms of the core values that any reasonably educated person is expected to have. Fundamental tools of education like basic problem solving, responsiveness to universal human values, appreciation of responsibility, peer relationships, sense of discrimination and discernment, and other such intangibles, have no place in our evaluative processes. With the ascendancy of the academic, there is a corresponding devaluation of sports and co-curricular activities in colleges and universities. The crowds that spent delightful hours watching their college/university team play against a favoured rival have all gone off to solve the esoteric numerical. Sportspersons, who were once lionised, now find themselves marginalised and are the new dalits of the academic world. No wonder, we need to have ‘reservations’ for them. The score that they made on the playing field was held to be of greater value than the one scored in the examination hall. All that has changed. In the process, we have lost our pre-eminent position in the world of sports and games; we do not get a single gold medal in world meets where countries one-fourth our size and population run away with bagfuls. Interestingly, the ‘Educator as an Academic’ is a distinctive product of Industrial Age Education. Its assembly-line syndrome and almost total concern for the product rather than the process is typically characteristic of the Industrial Age. As we move from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge, we need to realise that learning is fitful, episodic, explosive process of inquiry, where the process is as important as the product. It does not depend on cognitive skills alone and that in addition to logical and linguistic ‘intelligences’, it depends upon a host of other ‘intelligences’ that a human is endowed with. Such a view of learning looks on knowledge as a fundamental shift in vision, awakening intuition, whereby we re-create ourselves, re-perceive the world and become a part of the re-generative process of life. When this does happen then the educator will be back in business. Hopefully. The writer is Vice-Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla |
|
Profile The man with wide grin, rugged good looks and a certain masculine charm has also become an icon of advertisement campaigns. One can pay tribute to this 48-year-old former Captain of the Indian team for rephrasing the punch line of his Palmolive ad — Kapil da jawab nahin (there is no equal to Kapil). Widespread resentment was, therefore, inevitable when the Indian Cricket Board sacked him as chairman of the National Cricket Academy. Kapil’s crime was his refusal to give up his association with the newly formed Indian Cricket League (ICL). The league gained real credibility when Kapil Dev’s former team-mates and BCCI stalwarts Sandip Patil, Madan Lal and Balwinder Sandhu agreed to coaching contracts with the League and the former chairman of selectors, Kiran More, resigned as secretary of the Baroda Cricket Association in support of the ICL. Heading the list of seven foreign players, who have already signed up for the ICL, is former West Indies skipper Brian Lara, who retired from the international cricket after West Indies failed to make the World Cup’s semifinal in April. Other foreign cricketers who have signed contracts to play in the ICL are Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mohammad Yousug, Abdul Razzaq and Imran Farahat from
Pakistan, and Lance Klusener and Nicky Boje from South Africa. The BCCI has threatened to bar all Indian players featuring in the rival Indian Cricket League from playing in domestic and international competitions. Promoted by a TV company, the ICL will feature six teams in 20-20 matches between October and November. The rebel league has drawn a comparison with Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket that split the sport in the 1970s. Heading the ICL’s executive board, Kalpil Dev says he has only been promoting cricket and there is nothing wrong in this. At the Launch of the Indian Cricket League, he reportedly pointed to
the group of 44 Indian cricketers assembled on the occasion and described them as “cream of the country”. An assertive Kapil Dev was quoted as saying “the courage these people have shown, even I didn’t have at that age. We need people like this who want to make their own decisions. They take pride in playing for their country, not being pushed or threatened by someone. Kapil Dev has been getting support from top cricket personalities of yesteryear. Former captain, Ajit Wadekar hit out at the BCCI for banning players who have joined the 20-20 league. “The ICL’s intention seems to be to give a boost to domestic cricket and provide a platform for players who do not get a chance to play for India”, he said. Another former Captain Pataudi was also critical of the BCCI and said, “I don’t think you can ban players as long as they fulfil their commitment to the board”. Pakistan’s senior batsman, Younis Khan has said: “I am not against the League and may be ,I will take up an offer from them but only when I know I can also play for my country when required”. According to latest reports, former England batsman Mark Butcher has been offered a lucrative deal to captain a side in the ICL. Support to the ICL came from unexpected quarters. West Bengal Sports Minister Subhash Chakraborty, assured the League that he would allow the League to use the Eden Gardens and other grounds. “If Kapil Dev and others like to play here, I will allow them. What is the harm in it?,” he said.
|
|
— CPM leader
Prakash Karat Political parties have to be prepared for elections. If you are afraid of it, you will have to shut shop. — Congress leader Digvijay Singh A poverty-free world is feasible if there is collective belief and will. The challenge is to produce innovative social benefit models that apply to healthcare, education, training and marketing for the poor and areas such as renewable energy. — Nobel laureate and economist Mohd Yunus My husband is the natural choice as Jharkhand Chief Minister. I wonder how anybody else could occupy the slot. He alone can bring prosperity to the state. — Rupi Soren, wife of JMM chief Shibu Soren after his acquittal I would gladly vacate the post in favour of Mr Shibu Soren if the UPA high command asks me to. No doubt, Soren is a messiah for the state. — Jharkhand Chief Minister
Madhu Koda If we really love Islam, we should try to win Taslima Nasreen’s heart and soul through love and compassion. And that is what the Prophet of Islam did. — Asghar Ali Engineer,
Islamic scholar Shah Rukh Khan himself says that the training he got with Barry John is really what moulded his acting style. But what makes him unique is his incredible ability to connect intimately with the audience, something which no teacher can teach you. — Anupama Chopra, film critic, author — Madhuri Dixit
Nene
|
Nuclear deal demystified As
long as the 123 Agreement was under negotiation, public debate on the subject was mostly confined to the so-called “experts”. It is a pity that too many of our intellectuals and opinion makers have shied away from the debate because of the complex technical and legal issues involved. Now that the nation is on the verge of a final decision on this momentous Deal, it is high time to realize that it is not really necessary to understand terms such as “fast breeder reactors” and “dedicated facilities for processing spent fuel” to form a judgment on whether or not the Deal is in our national interest. The first point that must be grasped is that this not just a Deal to promote Indo-U.S. cooperation. It is the beginning of a process designed to accord to India a status in the Comity of Nations that is absolutely unique. For decades we have lived under a highly discriminatory “non-proliferation” regime. And now, thanks to the U.S. initiative, we are on the verge of being welcomed into the exclusive “Nuclear Club” — admittedly not as a full-fledged member but virtually with all the privileges. The 123 Agreement opens the doors to civilian nuclear co-operation, that have remained shut since 1974, not only with U.S. but with the entire world. India will be the only country to be accorded this privilege without being obliged to sign the NPT or to abandon its Nuclear Weapons programme. The momentous significance of this development could not have been better summed up than with the words “We have made history.” Then why has the Deal attracted so much flak in political circles? To answer this question it seems necessary to lift the veil of mystery and to remove misconceptions that have served to render criticism based on totally false premises sound plausible. A major criticism of the Deal is that it will take India too close to U.S. I have never quite understood how closer cooperation with U.S. can possibly harm us. India is a throbbing democracy on the verge of emerging as a major power on the world scene. Are we so lacking in self-confidence as to believe that any steps to bring the two countries closer together will somehow make us a vassal state? China has gone much further down the path of strategic cooperation with U.S., and has accepted much stricter conditions in its 123 Agreement than we have. Can it be argued that it has thereby compromised its national sovereignty? It is too naïve to think that any “strategic alliance” with U.S. amounts to abandoning our sixty-year old adherence to non-alignment. We must learn to distinguish between cooperation based on mutual interest and “alignment”. Despite repeated assurances that all of our concerns have been adequately addressed by the 123 Agreement, the specter of the Hyde Act continues to raise its head. The argument that we must not look at the Agreement in isolation from the Act is being bandied about left and right (pun intended). And the assertion that we only need to evaluate the Agreement and not the Act has been misinterpreted to mean that the Government has something to hide (pun unintended)! It is true that there are many provisions in the Hyde Act that are not acceptable to us. But all of them have been excluded from the 123 Agreement. What is generally not appreciated is that none of them are binding even on the U.S. Administration. And President Bush has already declared that he has no intention of observing them. It can be argued that a future President might not be as defiant. But it must be remembered that once the U.S. Congress approves the Agreement, the Administration will be under an International Treaty obligation to implement it. It would be highly extraordinary for any President to flout a Treaty that has received Congressional approval. In any case can we possibly enter into any bilateral agreement if we have the a-priori fear that the other party may not adhere to it? The situation is, of course, different with issues that are not covered by the 123 Agreement — and the one such issue that has been the subject of most discussion is India’s right to conduct another test, which we still retain. Since the Agreement is silent on the subject, no one denies that in such an event U.S. will have the right, though not the obligation, under its domestic laws to terminate the Agreement and to re-impose the earlier sanctions. But is this a valid reason to reject the Agreement? Are the restrictions not already in place since 1974? How can the position in this regard be any worse than it is now? The Agreement obliges U.S. to give a year’s notice for termination and provides for consultations on the circumstances necessitating a test. We cannot rule out that if such a test is required to restore the security balance in our region, which is also in U.S. interest, they may choose not to penalize India. The BJP’s opposition to the deal seems to be more a question of ego than of substance. It is common knowledge that the first steps towards reviving civilian nuclear cooperation with U.S. were taken by the previous Government. What is perhaps not as widely known is that some of the conditions they were prepared to accept — including the offer of an internationally binding ban on future tests — were far more stringent! In so far as the substance of the Deal is concerned, the BJP leaders have indulged in highly irresponsible rhetoric by saying that it should be renegotiated! The non-proliferation ayatollahs in U.S. are already upset that the Administration has capitulated to all of India’s demands. So even if we want to renegotiate, we will have no one to negotiate with! Our credibility will hit rock bottom and we can hardly expect to have a serious negotiation with any country, leave alone U.S. This brings me to the last argument against the Deal – and the one that seems to have the maximum sex appeal. We are a democracy, it is argued. How can we possibly accept a deal to which the majority in Parliament is opposed? I would be the last person to advocate the adoption of a Deal that does not reflect the will of the people. The question simply is how do we ascertain this will — through panel discussions on the TV or through a meaningful debate in Parliament? It can most certainly not be ascertained by heckling the Prime Minister and preventing him even from addressing Parliament. The writer is a former Ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament
|
|
On Record
Union
Minister of State for Industry Ashwani Kumar has led several Indian business delegations abroad and addressed conferences on industry and trade. He has participated in discussions of Aspen Strategy Group (a US-based think-tank) and interacted informally with business leaders in India and the US on the benefits of the civil nuclear energy deal. In an interview to
The Sunday Tribune, he gives some inputs at various levels on the deal which has created a political storm in the country. Excerpts: Q: How do you look at the opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal? A: This is the best possible deal for India’s clean energy needs and one that ends a long history of technology denial regimes from which we have had to suffer for long. It is primarily intended to ensure an additional nuclear power generation of over 25,000 MW by 2025. Imagine the impact of this energy on our economy, industrial and agricultural growth and resultant employment generation. The deal catapults India decisively to the high table of global politics. Q: How do you look at the Opposition and the Left’s claim that most MPs are opposed to the deal? A: True, there is opposition to the deal. However, the majority of Indians perceive it to be in national interest. We are, therefore, in a continuous constructive dialogue with all concerned to dispel misgivings about the deal. We are in active engagement with them to resolve the impasse. The nation can ill-afford mid-term polls. Q: Is the opposition to the deal more to do with political posturing? A:
Those of us in the government feel democratic politics ultimately must reflect the people’s will. Q: Was there a communication gap between the Left and the government which led to the stand off? A:
The process of consultation and negotiations on the deal has been going on for the past year or so. The Prime Minister himself has given detailed statements to Parliament about the deal. There have been formal and informal consultations between us and the allies, including the Left parties, on various aspects of the deal. We are in a continuous dialogue with those who differ with us to persuade them to our point while recognising their right to a different perspective. Q: How do you look at the Left seeing the deal as part of a strategic partnership with the US? A:
I think that in a fundamentally altered world, anti-Americanism per se cannot be the basis of our foreign policy. India is no banana republic. A country of a billion people with a trillion dollar economy and internationally recognised human resources and defence capabilities need fear none. India has always taken its foreign policy decisions solely on the basis of over-arching national interest. I believe that when the PM and UPA leadership says that the deal subserves a larger national interest, we must respect that assurance in then best traditions of parliamentary democracy. Q: How long will the government survive? A:
Mid-term poll won’t be in the national interest. I have faith in the maturity of our political process and am confident that the government will complete its full term. Q: What about the Left’s ultimatum not to proceed with the negotiations at the IAEA and NSG? A:
The UPA leadership is seized of the matter and a suitable decision will be taken by the government. Q: Is the nuclear deal the cornerstone of your government’s foreign policy? A:
No. Every nation seeks mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships with other countries, particularly with those with whom there is a broad convergence of interests in a given situation. The foreign policy of a country is an extension of its domestic priorities and is in a constant state of evolution and refinement. It is generally felt today that a genuine and mutually reinforcing partnership with the US, at this point of our development without in any way compromising our autonomy in decision-making, is in our national interest. Q: What is the solution to the stand off with the Left? A:
The UPA’s top leadership is committed to making all efforts to secure a consensus in favour of the deal and I believe that at the end of the day a reasonable solution that would address overriding national concerns would be
found.
|
|
Bansi Lal: Architect of Haryana
Bansi
Lal, whose 80th birth anniversary is being celebrated today, is respected as the chief architect of Haryana’s prosperity. Once regarded as the backyard of undivided Punjab, he transformed Haryana into a front-ranking developed state. He was a leader of many firsts in the country — 100 per cent rural electrification in the entire state and linking all villages with metalled roads, to name a few. He also developed other facilities like education, health, tourism, transport, potable water to the people and irrigation to the farmers. While passing an obituary reference in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker paid rich tributes to Bansi Lal and described him as the builder of Haryana. He is respected as a man of action and a man of words. He will be best remembered for his developmental pursuits and administrative acumen. As Chief Minister, Bansi Lal was a source of inspiration to the officials. He was always ready with plans and was keen on pursuing them to their logical conclusion. He used to guide top officials with minutes details of every developmental scheme. He had the courage to try new schemes in which he invariably succeeded. Of course, he could not succeed in introducing prohibition for which he was greatly disappointed. Sincere and hard working, he not only left an indelible impression in Haryana but also at the Centre as the Union Minister for Defence and Transport. He scrupulously practiced what he preached. He believed that good governance came only through morally sound people. He was a teetotaler. He did not believe in ostentation and was immune to flattery. He was a hard taskmaster. A strict disciplinarian, he did not like nagging officers. He was liberal in both reward for accomplishment and punishment for defaulters. His outspoken orations made many people jealous of him. Bansi Lal’s policies and programmes indeed brought a qualitative difference in the lives of the people. His PR skills were unique. Sometimes, he might have given the impression that he was not media savvy. But he made it a point to go through everyday the press clippings supplied to him by his officials of the Public Relations Department.n The writer is a former member of the Haryana Public Service Commission
|
| 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 | |
K
It is true that we have had some turbulence in politics here in Delhi over the Indo-US nuclear agreement. However, we shall be able to overcome these problems. If winter comes, can spring be far behind?
The UPA government’s future lies with the government itself. It is functioning because of our support and if we do not support it, how will it go on?
Today, it is possible to make a film on Abu Salem and reap commercial benefits. Earlier, such a character could only have been a villain. A moral blurring is taking place. It is disconcerting.
My sons have made me a fun person. Besides, all the experiences that you go through in life make you mature enough to realise that life doesn’t have to be taken seriously all the time. My sons keep me on my toes.
