|
|
|
|
|
Back to the streets
Kashmir girl’s sad saga |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A setback for Musharraf
India should talk to Taliban
In grief (or relief!)
Do IITs and IIMs, our premier institutions, promote a culture of excellence? Jairam Ramesh's controversial comments about the students being excellent and faculty being less than ‘world class’ created quite a ruckus. A cross-section of students and teachers from these institutions give their views on whether the research and teaching are of international standards. Do we as a society value excellence and have the wherewithal to actively pursue it?
|
Back to the streets
It
is unfortunate that the government and Anna Hazare’s Civil Society representatives are already on a collision course, putting serious question marks on the future of the Jan Lokpal Bill. Anna’s men have not only suspicions about the government’s intentions, but have also called their supporters to get ready to take to the streets again. Indeed, there are major differences over vital issues like bringing the Prime Minister and the judiciary under the purview of the proposed Bill, probing MPs’ parliamentary conduct and merging anti-corruption bodies like the CVC, the CBI and departmental vigilance wings into the office of the Lokpal. While the Civil Society representatives insist that not taking these steps will make the Lokpal a powerless watchdog, the government representatives swear by self-regulation. While self-regulation appears to be an excellent idea on paper, the harsh truth is that it has not worked in the past 60 years. The country may have had some excellent Prime Ministers and Chief Justices but still corruption grew by leaps and bounds. The public frustration and anger has grown in step with that. What the common man wants is a foolproof mechanism with the help of which he could break this wall against which he has to bang his head every day. Anna Hazare’s movement was only a manifestation of that disillusionment. Whether the Lokpal will be the right tool to curb corruption is secondary. What matters is that the public is sick and tired of the present corrupt system. How to get rid of this menace is what matters the most. But the political class, in cahoots with the business and the bureaucracy, has instead tried to discredit the public protests. Sidelining the Gandhian form of public protests would be dangerous because that would bring into picture the radical elements which swear by violent means of protest. The politicians should treat Anna’s men as their friends instead of adversaries, for they represent the voice of the people. It is no point talking of a clean administration and not bringing it about.
|
|
Kashmir girl’s sad saga
Between
a gushing Chenab and police custody, Rahida Banoo chose the Chenab and met her end. She was just 20 and had dreams of becoming a teacher. If the police, supposed to be the protector of citizens’ rights in a democracy, carries such a terrifying image, it is a matter of shame and concern for society in general. The incident also exposes the vulnerability of young women at the hands of the law enforcers. Towards May end, when day after day headlines declare exemplary achievements of girls in bold letters in school and college results, it comes as a shock that an educated girl had to lose her life in Doda district in such unfortunate circumstances. Rahida Banoo, was neither a proclaimed offender nor a fugitive. She was an ordinary girl, pursuing the B.Ed course, and had come to hand over her admission form to a friend, Najab Din, in a tea shop. It was then that on a call from someone, four policemen arrived with great alacrity and grilled her and her friend about their relationship. Rahida had to call her father and make him tell the police that she was there, “ with his permission”. There cannot be a more unfortunate statement on the status of women in our society than this! Yet, the police insisted upon taking Rahida into custody, at which point she chose to jump into the river. This shocking incident, unfortunately, is not one odd case. The police is often caught on the wrong side of the law, especially when it concerns dealing with women. There is no record available on the number of cases pending against policemen caught molesting women. The numbers that go unreported are anyone’s guess. Therefore, suspension of one ASI and two constables involved and search for the persons who called the police and putting the blame on them will not prevent such cases in the future. Each one should bear the responsibility, including those who witnessed the incident and did not intervene, for letting things slip to such a morass.
|
|
|
A setback for Musharraf
Pakistan’s
former military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf has no dearth of friends in the Army who have been doing all they can to help him establish himself as a politician. Yet he is finding it difficult to realise his latest dream because Pakistan’s judiciary is full of elements opposed to the retired Army Chief. The judiciary with Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as the Chief Justice of Pakistan has never been as powerful as it is today. The declaration of General Musharraf as a “proclaimed offender” by a Rawalpindi-based anti-terrorism court should be seen against this backdrop. The judge handling the Benazir Bhutto assassination case termed him a “fugitive” on a request by the Federal Investigation Agency as General Musharraf was allegedly not cooperating with the court in the trial proceedings, but there is more to it than meets the eye. General Musharraf has been living in self-imposed exile in London since 2009 mainly to prevent his opponents from getting him jailed on some pretext. The best case to throw him behind bars is the killing of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 after she addressed a party rally at Rawalpindi. The charge against General Musharraf is that he as the then President of Pakistan failed to provide adequate security to Benazir, leading to her death in a suicide bomb attack. His argument that the PPP leader lost her life because of her carelessness in security matters has few takers. General Musharraf knows well that he can win his battle only through politics. That is why he formed his own party — the All-Pakistan Muslim League — some time ago when his former stooges controlling the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid), once derisively called the King’s Party, refused to lend him any help. He has a large number of followers who give him credit for saving Pakistan from getting reduced to another Afghanistan after 9/11 with his tactical u-turn on his Taliban policy. But it is not easy for him to achieve his objective unless he mends his fences with the judiciary.
|
|
|
Experience shows that success is due less to ability than to zeal. The winner is he who gives himself to his work, body and soul. — Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton
|
India should talk to Taliban
It
is important to revisit India’s objectives and strategies to achieve them in Afghanistan in the changing regional security environment after the killing of Osama bin Laden and the Prime Minister’s address in Kabul to the Afghan Parliament. What is likely to be the political situation and internal equation within Afghanistan, and how best India could achieve its long-term strategic objectives? If the Taliban is likely to play a major role either as a part of a coalition or directly in the future political dispensation, should India still stick to a moral position? In case India (and the rest of the international community) is unable to prevent the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan in the next few years, should it at least not have a channel of communication open? In short, should India also consider talking to the Taliban? India’s strategy — whether or not to talk to the Taliban — should be based on a cold and rational calculation of an emerging situation in Afghanistan, and how best India could safe-guard its interests in that environment. First, there should be an appraisal of what is likely to happen in Afghanistan, in terms of the emerging political situation, after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Osama’s departure is likely to shape the public opinion in the West (do not read narrowly as that of the US) in terms of what should be the likely objective and strategy in Afghanistan. President Obama in his speeches has made it clear that his primary objective is disrupt and dismantle the Al-Qaida network. He also made it crystal clear in his last speech that the US was not there in Afghanistan to meet each and every threat faced by the Afghans. Not only has the US taken such a stand. Even the NATO made a similar observation during the Lisbon summit in 2010. The Chief of the NATO has categorically stated that the Afghans will be made the owner of their security. More importantly, the civil society in the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and other countries, which have made substantial investments in Afghanistan, is likely to question their government’s continued presence in Afghanistan after the killing of Osama. Besides public pressure, the battle fatigue will result in the international community removing its boots from the Afghan ground. If at all there is any presence, it will be a minimal presence, mainly by the US in and around Bagram air base. This presence is likely to primarily serve their larger strategic objective in the region, rather than protecting any Afghan interest. The rest of the international community’s presence in Afghanistan is likely to be limited to the various developmental projects which have been in progress. As a result, the US (along with the rest of the international community), before leaving Afghanistan, will attempt to stitch a loose coalition with everyone including the Taliban. This is where one is likely to see Pakistan’s efforts to get some of its stooges within the Taliban on board. The idea of the “Moderate Taliban” or “Good Taliban” is actually a Pakistani strategy, which works well with the American objective of leaving Afghanistan, with a workable arrangement. The Haqqani network in particular is likely to become a part of this coalition sooner than later. In fact, efforts have been already made to get the Haqqani network on board; there have been multiple reports in the Pakistani media on President Karzai meeting the leaders of the Haqqani network in the presence of Gen Ashfaque Kayani. This meeting would not have happened without the approval of the US. In fact, the US has also been attempting to reach out to the Taliban. Though one is not sure, how much they have succeeded and with which sections of the Taliban, in principle, the US is agreeable to a future dispensation in Afghanistan with a Taliban presence? Second, besides what the international community wants and is likely to do, India should seriously take into account what Afghanistan wants. President Karzai, who figures in India’s future strategy, has made his intentions clear. He has already entered into a formal dialogue with the Taliban. Besides the above-mentioned secret meeting between General Kayani and the Haqqani network, Mr Karzai has signed two major agreements with Pakistan — the trade and transit agreement and a deal on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline. Both agreements were to include India; the former got scuttled because of Pakistan’s reluctance, and the latter due to India’s. Within Afghanistan, Mr Karzai has formed a Peace Jirga to negotiate with the Taliban. The Peace Jirga is an official body, constituted and mandated with full support from the Afghan Parliament, which the Indian Prime Minister addressed in May. While the progress between this Peace Jirga and the Taliban is not known, one is clear that there is a parliamentary approval to negotiate with the Taliban. What appears clear from the above two happenings at the global level and within Afghanistan is a deal with the Taliban (or sections of it) by the international community to safeguard Afghan interests and to ensure a stable polity by reaching out to them. What should be India’s strategy in terms of talking to the Taliban? Should it be based on the above environment, or on any rhetoric and self-imposed moral code — come what may, we will not talk to the Taliban? If the international community and the Afghans are willing to work with the Taliban, India shying away will not yield any positive dividends and protect its investments in Afghanistan. The primary problem, even if New Delhi decides to initiate a channel of communication with the Taliban, will be: whom to talk to within the Taliban? The Taliban in Afghanistan is not a monolithic entity; one could observe three different factions within the Taliban. One is led by Mullah Omar and believed to be headquartered in Quetta (hence referred to as the Quetta Shura). The second faction is led by the Haqqanis — once they had their headquarters in Nangarhar province (now it has been uprooted by coalition troops and has shifted its base to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or the FATA region in Pakistan). While the first is powerful even today in southern Afghanistan, surrounding Kandahar, the second one is strongly based in eastern Afghanistan. While the Quetta Shura, under the leadership of Mullah Omar, is considered independent, the Haqqani network is totally under the control of the ISI. Pakistan is unlikely to allow either of these two factions to interact with India. In fact, the Haqqani network is actively being exploited by the ISI to target Indian investments and presence in Afghanistan, including the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. While India may not be able to break into the Haqqani network, one should understand that the Mullah Omar group is neither under the total control of the ISI nor is absolutely anti-Indian. The third faction of the Taliban is what India could tap into; this includes the former Afghan Mujahideen and warlords, who later joined the Taliban. Of course, these erstwhile mujahideen leaders, who are now a part of the Taliban, have never been democrats and are not known for their respect for human rights. But should this prevent India from interacting with them? As an emerging power, India should have enough leverages, especially when it is not in a situation to influence the environment. This could be done primarily by opening multiple channels, then investing in one person or party, as New Delhi has done so far in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. If the international community and the Afghan Parliament are willing to negotiate with the Taliban, should India avoid the real politic and still continue to emphasise on rhetoric? Should it go ahead with such a policy even if it is to affect India’s future interests in Afghanistan and result in all its investment going down the
drain? The writer is Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies,New Delhi, and Visiting Professor, Jamia Millia
Islamia.
|
|||||||
In grief (or relief!) The proverbial swan song, “Ghalley ave Nanaka sadde uth jaye”, titles most Sikh obituaries placed in the daily newspapers. “With ‘profound grief’ we inform the untimely (over 80 years) passing away of our beloved . . .!” Most of the grief, however, melts away once the cremation is over. The next 12 hours are spent on animated discussions among the ‘nears and dears’ on the date of the Antim Ardas and the bhog ceremony. Convenience emerges as the frontrunner to facilitate outstation relatives and friends and to help shorten the span of grieving, to boot. While in days and times gone by it was believed that grieving did not last for more than two years, today the ‘grief’ turns into relief the moment the bhog ceremony is over. In the good old days the last meal to bid farewell to the departed soul was a simple one comprising daal, sabzi, raita and roti followed by kheer. Today the best caterers are commissioned and the atmosphere is one of opulence and indulgence in which the poorly ignored ‘profound grief’ is desperately looking for an escape route. With fattened stomachs the ‘nears and dears’ depart in their chauffeur-driven cars. The dear departed soul has to wait for the next 11 months to be remembered again through kirtan followed by Guru ka langar and by slow degrees is mentioned only in dispatches in the form of an annual memoriam that is likely to last for a decade or so, at best! Thereafter the soul is left to rest in peace. A sampling of obituary ads makes interesting reading. A recent trend is visible in half a dozen obituaries sponsored by immensely grieved corporate, political admirers or sycophants (sic!). The photograph accompanying these is quite often that of a smiling youthful person snapped in his/her days, more so in the case of uniformed services. Memoriam ads are invariably couched in poetic excellence that could hold a candle to Ghalib or Hali on their home turf. Ladders seem to be particularly in demand. Sample this for instance—”If memories could build a ladder/ I would be with you forever”, only to return to mother earth at the break of dawn to be on time to file an income tax return for the income/family pension of the deceased in question. In the case of the passing away of a parent of children settled abroad the obituary mentions the kin’s name which is followed by the USA, Canada, Australia or England, prominently in parenthesis. These are Honoris Causa degrees conferred on the demise of their dear ones! It won’t be long before dying becomes an event management
portfolio!
|
|||||||
Do IITs and IIMs, our premier institutions, promote a culture of excellence? Jairam Ramesh's controversial comments about the students being excellent and faculty being less than ‘world class’ created quite a ruckus. A cross-section of students and teachers from these institutions give their views on whether the research and teaching are of international standards. Do we as a society value excellence and have the wherewithal to actively pursue it?
I
wish Jairam Ramesh had not made that statement. It is excusable and ignorable when it comes from fashionably cynical kids on campus. But when a man of his standing and experience makes such an oversimplified and scathing assessment, there is the very real danger of people taking his word at face value, given how he has been a part of the system here at IIT. In one stroke he labels faculty members as incompetent and the students as world-beaters. If only the world was as black and white.
What the students Think : Research needs money. Research needs a lot of labs and facilities. And most of all, research needs a culture. We are better equipped on all three counts than most other Indian universities, but we need a lot more if we are to compete with the big boys and call ourselves world class. On the question of autonomy, we need to ensure that our institutes have enough of it. Give the IITs and IIMs more control over the donations made to them. Let them choose how many students they want and how they wish to admit them. Stop controlling their merit lists with quotas. Free them from the clutches of the government. But the minister already knows all of this and does not need a college student to lecture him on it I would assume. Let us get to the elephant in the room then. Are our faculty members world class? Dicey question. I had asked a senior the same thing in my first year. His response, “Look, you are going to have good professors and bad professors in universities all over the world.” In a way, that sums it up. I could reel off names of professors who have been masters of their respective specialisations and attending whose classes has been an absolute pleasure. The other extreme then - do we have people in our institute doing Nobel Prize-winning work? I took this question to our mess tables and the consensus was a resounding ‘no’. Nobel-winning research, one must understand, is a lot about the environment you work in and this is where the importance of a research culture kicks in. The world’s top universities, apart from having generously funded and well-equipped laboratories, have highly competitive lab groups with a motley mix of undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral students. They compete against each other and against researchers from the rest of the world for rewards in the form of more funding, journal papers and patents. The environment is such that everyone around you aspires for those rewards and good ideas are in abundance. This is one area we can work on. But to pin all the blame for a less-than-average research culture on faculty members is unfair. Which brings me to the other part of the Hon’ble Minister’s assertion - are our students really world-class? Are we potential somethings waiting to explode, given the right encouragement and facilities, and inhibited only by less-than-world-class professors and the system? Most students here are brighter than average, true. Sadly though, there is a whole huge bunch of us who are just not enthused by engineering. Quite a few of us were driven to IIT and engineering only for the brand and because it was not fashionable in our cities and towns for high scoring folk to get into liberal arts. The result? A lot many of us put in just about enough effort to scrape through our exams every semester and channelise our energy elsewhere – clearly not ideal raw material for a good culture. Which is not to say that there are not students in the institute who are not passionate about science and research, I know a few of them myself. But then, they are exceptions rather than the norm. The IITs are not really thriving. We barely seem to be surviving, as the minister rightly points out, and it is more on reputation than anything else - a reputation built up by our more illustrious alumni from the last 50 years. In that sense, the students we had at the time (the Hon’ble Minister was a student here) were, in all probability, world class. The sense of this system’s future that I get after being a part of it for five years, however, is not a very positive one. I believe the minister would be serving the country better by directing his broadside towards his own government than his alma mater. He is smart enough to know what needs to be done without any one of us telling him. Simplistic, fatalistic demagoguery is okay when it spews forth from the mouths of his less illustrious peers. But you, Mr. Jairam Ramesh, we believe in you enough to hold you to a higher standard. (The writer is a final-year
student of civil engineering in IIT, Bombay)
Facultyspeak
Two senior members of IIT, Bombay, on the condition that their names would be withheld had this to say: Make it attractive for the best
The profession of teaching and research is not an attractive profession for most young students due to financial reasons. The top talent is not opting for a career in teaching and research. There are perhaps only 25 per cent of faculty members who do research that can be termed “of international standards”. The IITs are far ahead of any university in India in terms of research quantity and quality. The socio-economic conditions must improve in order to create world class universities and institutes. World class institutes did not become world class in 50 years. The top universities in the world have a long tradition and attract talent from all over the world. The Government must provide autonomy to institutions of higher learning. The UGC and AICTE have failed in managing higher education. There is a lot of corruption in these bodies. Every minister in charge of the Ministry of Human Resource Development tries to change something in IITs to get public attention. They will serve the country better by improving schools and colleges which are in a pathetic condition. Once these improve, there will be better people going in for higher education. The Chinese invest heavily in higher education and elementary education. They offered 50 per cent of the American salary to the Chinese who were teaching in developed countries. As a result, hundreds of Chinese came back and enriched their universities. There are talented Indians abroad, the MHRD should devise a strategy to encourage good researchers to come back. In developed countries, teaching is a respected profession but in India it is not. One may ask any class in a school and verify this. Hardly any one wants to go in for teaching and research. Creation of world class institutions requires full autonomy, a good pay and a large proportion of people going in for higher education. Until this happens, we cannot have world class institutes. No roadmap for higher education in the country
In my opinion, the decision to open new IITs without having an adequate number of skilled scientific/technology manpower in the country was, by itself, a wrong decision. It was only motivated by considerations that were non-professional and had to do more with realpolitik in the then ruling class that took the decision. It is slightly irresponsible on the part of the minister to make such statements, instead of helping out the IITs that are already facing far too many difficulties due to the government’s decision of opening IITs in a thoughtless manner. The IITs have a better faculty than most state universities but that is hardly any consolation given that they have larger funding and better facilities. The entire thing boils down to one moot question.: It is not this government (to which Jairam Ramesh belongs) or that government, but no government in India has the desire to work out a well thought out roadmap for higher education in the country. The late Rajiv Gandhi made an attempt to start something in that direction but it was all lost later. (As told to Vipul Grover) Why not find out the truth?
Whether
IIM/IIT faculty are world class or to what extent can be verified by looking into their CVs and their contribution to research and publications in the journals of International repute. Therefore my personal suggestion to the Government. is to set up a committee to find out the contributions in terms of research/publications and accordingly determine whether they are up to the level of world class standards or otherwise. Making opinions either in favour or against will not reveal the real truth about the quality of faculty members. These are my personal views and are in no way connected with my association with IIM Lucknow. — BK
Mohanty (The writer teaches Operations Research in IIM,
Lucknow)
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | E-mail | |
No one would disagree with him on the major premise of the IITs not being world-class research institutions. For an institute with such name and pull our research output in terms of research papers and patents is far too low. How do you decide whom to pin the blame on? Top institutes around the world have two common features: access to funding and autonomy. The world class institutions that the minister refers to, one among which is University of California at Berkeley (a state university), have budgets running into hundreds of millions of dollars. Stanford University, a private university, has a multi-billion dollar budget, in addition to a Goliath-sized corpus. In comparison, our research budgets rarely exceed a few million dollars, and we have, at best, a pittance for a corpus.
A gross generalisation only undermines the abilities and efforts of the few people who do make a difference to the institute’s research output. A comment like this shouldn’t come from a person of such high standing in Indian governance, an alumnus, no less. He is in a position to influence the direction the IITs and the IIMs take.
Jairam Ramesh himself said that his ministry is doing a PPP to come up with that centre in Jamnagar on marine biodiversity. He also said that in a governmental set-up, it is not possible to do world class research. I guess he made a fool of himself by making contradictory statements, unless he really believes that the IITs are completely autonomous.
As far as the faculty goes, I feel that we could do much better with some newer and younger faculty members. This would not only help solve the problem of shortage of faculty but younger faculty generally seems to have enthusiasm towards research. Our faculty is involved with some world class research, still, that is more in spite of the system than because of it. 
IIMs definitely derive a lot of respect in industry and community due to the extremely competitive entrance process. There are a few world class faculty members in IIMs who have a sharp influence on the journey of a student at an IIM and thereafter. Any blanket labelling would be inappropriate.
The first reaction is to be defensive and question the claim. We must take it as an opportunity to introspect. Jairam Ramesh is not completely wrong but criticism is different from critiquing, which we must do.