|
|
|
|
|
Over to
the SIT Private
players or public |
|
|
Keep
watch on Afghan situation
‘Shram
daan’ in Karachi
Gambling
against Armageddon From the
heights of Shimla to the depths of jingoism
|
|
Private players or public Much
has been said and written about the mushrooming of educational institutions in the private sector. Now a comprehensive survey of higher educational institutions by the Ministry of Human Resource Development once again proves that more and more colleges and universities are being run by private players. According to the recent figures, 70 per cent colleges and 30 per cent universities in the country are in the private domain. While India continues to face a host of challenges on the higher education front, the decline in government participation in higher education by itself can't be seen as a stumbling block. For right from the beginning the Planning Commission envisaged a role for both the private and public sectors. However, over the years the quality of higher education has become a matter of grave consternation. The shortage of faculty and infrastructure, absence of innovation and pioneering research as well as the unsatisfactory Gross Enrolment Ratio, there are many impediments to excellence. It might be erroneous to presume that privatisation alone is responsible for the declining standards of higher education in the country. The dismal performance of the government institutions in international rankings is a case in point. Add to it the fact that thousands of positions in Central universities lie vacant. Still, there is no denying that more ills plague private higher education institutions where students suffer on account of both exorbitant fees and woeful teaching standards. A nation that boasts of its demographic dividend and one that will become the youngest nation by 2030 can't afford to ignore the needs and demands of its growing college-going population. Education, be it in the private or public sector, has to produce an employable education pool, something which is not happening despite surveys and concerns over the un-employability issue. No doubt, the private players can be the game-changers. But for that to happen, systems, especially those that monitor quality like the accreditation system, have to be in place. New education policy,
digitisation, a national ranking system or even a relook at not for-profit educational institutions — whatever may be the road map for future, quality has to be the driving force.
|
|||||
|
At the touch of love everyone becomes a poet. — Plato
|
|||||
How the Panchayats shall work THE working of the newly created Panchayats shall be regulated by the rules made by His Honour. Briefly the members of each Panchayat shall be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner from among persons residing within the area of the Panchayat's jurisdiction, and the same officer may, subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, suspend or remove a member for incapacity, neglect of duty, misconduct, or other just cause. These shall hold office till the end of the calendar year, unless reappointed. The procedure shall be simple and short. When a plaintiff applies to a Munsiff to have his case heard by a Bench of members of the Panchayat, the Munsiff shall summon the defendant, and on the latter's agreeing the parties shall nominate the Bench to which the suit shall be referred. The Bench so nominated shall summon through the village chaukidar such witnesses as are to be examined, and record their decision giving the reasons therefore.
The election of the Congress President THERE was considerable doubt and dissatisfaction in the county as regards the procedure followed by the Madras Reception Committee in the election of the President. A clear and unequivocal majority in favour of Lala Lajpat Rai was understood to have been set aside and a second reference made to the Provincial Congress Committees in violation of the articles of the constitution in order to secure the election of Mr. Bhupendra Nath Basu. But the Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Shrinivasa Shastri of the Servants of India Society writes to the Press to explain that it is not true that there was a clear and unequivocal majority for Lala Lajpat Rai and that there was nothing irregular in the procedure followed by the Reception Committees.
|
Keep watch on Afghan situation
ON Sunday at a ceremony - not announced in advance for fear of an attack - Britain and the United States handed over to the Afghan government and its security forces two major and adjacent military bases in Helmand province of the country which has seen the worst of fighting during the 13 years of war and where the rebellious Taliban are still in a strong position. Between them the US base named Leatherneck and the British one called Camp Bastion formed the international coalition's regional headquarters and housed 40,000 military personnel and civilian contractors all of whom were flown back home by Monday evening. For Britain it was the end of its combat role in Afghanistan. The British Defence Secretary used the occasion to announce that no British troops would be sent back to Afghanistan ever. For America, the combat role will end in two months. But, under the Afghanistan-US Defence Security Agreement (DSA), around 10,000 American troops will remain in the war-ravaged country up to the end of 2016. The departing international coalition seems encouraged because it sees the formation of a government of national unity in Afghanistan - after a hotly disputed election -- as a good augury. That would surely so if it lasts. Many are doubtful if it can because the formation of the united government is less voluntary and more America-brokered. President Ashraf Ghani lived in America and worked for the World Bank. His rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has been made the CEO for which there is no provision in the Afghan constitution. Many of his strong supporters, belonging to ethnicities other than Pushtoon, are opposed to this arrangement. Should it break down, Afghanistan would return to armed conflict among warlords. But let us hope that this danger would be averted. But there will still be several other challenges. For one thing, the Afghan National Army - which, along with the police - numbers 3,50,000, is American-trained, like the Iraqi Army that has virtually collapsed. Could the ANA meet the same fate, especially because it does not have air cover, and is unlikely to get it? Its other equipment is also inadequate. The international community has therefore to do something to ensure the safety of post-US Afghanistan. The Afghan economy is in bad shape. According to the World Bank, the rate of growth of the Afghan GDP plummeted from 14. 4 per cent in 2012 to 3.1 per cent in 2013 and is likely to be 3.5 per cent this year. No wonder President Ghani has rushed to a three-day visit to China where he will meet his opposite number, Xi Jinping, signalling the pivotal role he expects Beijing to play not only in economic reconstruction of Afghanistan but also in a strategic foreign policy aimed at building peace in a region torn by war and conflict for three decades. China does have a stake in peace and stability in Afghanistan where it owns one of the biggest copper mines in the world and is waiting to start operating it. Also Beijing knows that the rebels in its Xinjiang province get much assistance from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. To this extent India’s and China’s interest is the same. But we have to be watchful about what China actually does there, as we have difficulties with Chinese activities in other neighbouring countries. Time was when the US used to criticise this country for not helping it to overcome its biggest strategic problem, Afghanistan, by settling all its numerous disputes with Pakistan and letting America leave after settling the Afghan imbroglio. Later, however, Washington welcomed India's “larger footprint” in Afghanistan. For it saw how popular India and Indians were there because this country was concentrating on Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development, building its parliament, university and other institutions and providing electricity to even its remote villages. Altogether, India has invested two billion dollars in Afghanistan. It has also trained Afghan military officers in Delhi, not Kabul. As for Pakistan the wide world knew that all through his dictatorial rule Gen Pervez Musharraf was “double-crossing” the US and yet he and his successors, operating through the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), got away with this perfidy. All through these years the then Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, went on protesting publicly not only against Pakistan unleashing on his country its officially sponsored and nurtured terrorists but also for having become a haven for terrorists of all kinds. Neither the US nor Pakistan cared. The bitter truth is from the very beginning Pakistan has treated Afghanistan as its backyard that gave it “strategic depth” against India. After the first Afghan jihad when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to preserve a government friendly to it, it was Pakistan that organised the Taliban. It has also played host to the Taliban’s icon, Maulana Umar. Today Pakistan’s main objective is to ensure that after America's full exit Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban friendly to Islamabad. It might be making sweet noises but its actions are totally opposite. In fact, its determination to keep India out of Afghanistan and virtually rule Afghanistan is much the stronger than before. Indeed, its enmity with India has increased greatly, as its aggressive behaviour along the Line of Control and the international border which the state of Jammu and Kashmir demonstrates. The United States knows and witnesses all this. But so great is President Barack Obama's need to cut his losses and get out of Afghanistan - the American people are fed up with America's longest war that has cost it heavily in both blood and treasure - that he is prepared to pay any price to Pakistan for the latter's help to enable the US to wash its hands of Afghanistan. This is the source of the greatest trouble and challenge we are going to face fairly soon. I hope our policymakers have noticed that in the list of Pakistani terrorist outfits mentioned in the Modi-Obama joint declaration there is no mention of
Taliban.
|
||||||
‘Shram daan’ in Karachi In school, the day was spent sprucing up the classroom, scrubbing the graffiti off its much abused walls in the hope of winning the ‘Glowing Classroom’ prize. It pitted class against class (pun unintended) and turned friends into foes and foes into friends — it became so competitive. Later in life, the experience was repeated (without much of the competition, mercifully) — this time to brighten up the tired facades of our missions abroad by wielding the broom. Again, at least once a year. In the same spirit, on a particular eve of Gandhi Jayanti, it was decided that the best way to pay homage to Bapu would be through “Shram daan”. Little did we know that this innocent and noble resolve of ours would become a diplomatic incident. The location was our Consulate General in Karachi, in the days when we still had one and there was relative calm on the LOC. It was unanimously agreed that we would clean our individual offices plus the common areas of the huge, impressive building. Once the decision was taken the officers and staff got into the act. On the appointed hour, teams of officers armed with brooms and pails and mops and dusters set upon the building like people possessed. Their families, not to be left behind, joined in with great gusto and enthusiasm. Some rooms were scrubbed twice and thrice over — once by the officer concerned, then by his wife and children and then again by his doting or dotty staff. In the excitement, one or two windows were broken. In short, there was palpable energy in the air. In fact, the officers and staff got so carried away that after cleaning the Consulate premises, they poured out onto the streets and began sweeping them with great vigour and animated fervour. The next day’s headlines in a major local newspaper read “SHAME on Karachi Municipality — India's Consul General and Staff Sweep the Streets of the City”. The Mayor of Karachi came running to the Consul General to apologise for the sorry state of the city’s streets. Municipal Commissioners called up to ask why the Consulate was upset with them. It took a Press release to set the record straight. Even then, local friends would look confused and the last word was — “So you'd like us to believe that to pay respects to the Father of your Nation, you were sweeping our streets?” After this, need one add, there was no “Shram daan”, at least for the while we were in Karachi. — The writer, a 1970 batch IFS officer, is a former
Secretary in the MEA and a former member of the UPSC
|
||||||
Gambling against Armageddon
IN
an opinion piece last year, Henry Kissinger observed that over the next couple of decades a nuclear war was likely to take place between India and Pakistan. The nuclear factor was in play in four major and one minor India-Pakistan crises: in 1987, 1990, 1998, 1999 and 2002. In 1987, when an Indian army chief launched the Brasstacks military exercises along Pakistan's exposed desert borders, Pakistan responded by deploying its forces in the north where India was vulnerable. Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's agreement to a mutual stand-down no doubt also took into account the informal threat from Islamabad to bomb India's nuclear reactors in case Pakistan was attacked. (After the crisis ended, the Pakistan-India agreement not to attack each other's nuclear facilities was jointly formulated in one day.) In January 1990, when the anti-Indian insurgency erupted in Kashmir and India threatened Pakistan, a conflict was forestalled by US intervention. The US acted when it learnt that Pakistan had begun to arm its nuclear-capable aircraft. During the night of 26-27 May 1998 — the night before Pakistan conducted its nuclear explosions in response to India's tests — Pakistani radar detected unidentified aircraft flying towards its territory. Islamabad issued warnings of instant retaliation to India and relayed these to the US and Israel. This may have been a false alarm; but it illustrates the danger of accidental conflict in the absence of real-time communications. During the 1999 Kargil war, the nuclear dimension was implicit, given that the crisis occurred a year after the India-Pakistan nuclear tests. During the 2002 general mobilisation by India and Pakistan, the director general of the Pakistan Armed Forces Special Plans Division enunciated its nuclear “doctrine” in a news interview. The “doctrine” envisaged that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons if: it was being militarily overwhelmed; its nuclear or strategic weapons or facilities were attacked; and it was subjected to an enemy blockade. The projection of this doctrine, including at a UN news conference by this writer in July 2002, sparked a fall in the Indian Stock Exchange, the evacuation of foreign personnel and embassy families from New Delhi and a demarche by Indian business leaders to prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, and reportedly led to the Indian agreement for a mutual drawback of forces. The operation of mutual deterrence displayed in 2002, however, is being eroded by several developments. One, the conventional military balance is becoming progressively unfavourable to Pakistan. India is engaged in a major arms build-up. It is the world's largest arms importer today. It is deploying advanced and offensive land, air and sea weapons systems. Pakistan's conventional capabilities may not prove sufficient to deter or halt an Indian attack. Two, India has adopted the Cold Start doctrine envisaging a rapid strike against Pakistan. This would prevent Pakistan from mobilising its conventional defence and thus lower the threshold at which Pakistan may have to rely on nuclear deterrence. Three, Pakistan has had to deploy over 150,000 troops on the western border due to its involvement in the cross-border counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, reducing its conventional defence capacity against India. Four, the acquisition of foreign nuclear plants and fuel, made possible by the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, will enable India to enlarge its nuclear weapons stockpile significantly. To maintain nuclear balance, Pakistan has accelerated production of fissile materials. Both nuclear arsenals are now large and growing. Five, given its growing conventional disadvantage, and India's pre-emptive war fighting doctrine, Pakistan has been obliged to deploy a larger number of nuclear-capable missiles, including so-called “theatre” or tactical nuclear-capable missiles. The nuclear “threshold” is now much lower. Six, the Kashmir dispute — once described by former US president Bill Clinton as a nuclear flashpoint — continues to fester. Another insurgency is likely to erupt, certainly if the Bharatiya Janata Party government goes ahead with its platform promise to abrogate Article 370 of the Indian constitution (which accords special status to Jammu & Kashmir). A renewed Kashmiri insurgency will evoke Indian accusations against Pakistan and unleash another Indo-Pakistan crisis. Seven, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has obviously decided to adopt an aggressive posture towards Pakistan, no doubt to appeal to his hard-line Hindu constituency. The recent ceasefire violations along the Line of Control are an ominous indication of such belligerence. Eight, India is reportedly involved in supporting the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and the Baloch Liberation Army to destabilise Pakistan internally. Nine, India has terminated the “composite dialogue” with Pakistan. Its precondition for talks — an "absence of violence" — is impossible for Pakistan to meet. Ten, the US and other major powers evince little interest in addressing the combustible mix of live disputes, terrorist threats, conventional arms imbalance and nuclear weapons in South Asia. During the parallel dialogue initiated by the US with Pakistan and India following their 1998 nuclear explosions, Pakistan proposed a “strategic restraint regime” with India which would include mechanisms to resolve disputes, including Kashmir; preserve a conventional arms balance and promote mutual nuclear and missile restraint. India rejected the concept of a mutual restraint regime. The US at first agreed to consider Pakistan's proposal. However, as their talks with India transitioned from restricting India's nuclear programme to building a “strategic partnership” (against China), the Americans de-hyphenated policy towards Pakistan and India, opened the doors to building India's conventional and nuclear capabilities and disavowed any interest in the Kashmir dispute. Currently, Indian belligerence is bolstered by US pressure on Pakistan to halt fissile material production and reverse the deployment of theatre nuclear-capable missiles. If a South Asian Armageddon is to be prevented, it is essential to build a structure of stable deterrence between India and Pakistan and find ways to deal with Kashmir and other outstanding disputes. Reviving consideration of a strategic restraint regime would be a good place to start. The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
|
||||||
|
From the heights of Shimla to the depths of jingoism
It
is a small desk, ornate but unexpectedly small. Forty-two years ago, it bore the weight of two hands that signed the 1972 Shimla Agreement. Today, that desk bears the lighter burden of two framed photographs — one of the Indian and Pakistani delegations in congress, and the other of their leaders Mrs Indira Gandhi and Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto signing a common document in the pre-dawn of July 3. The desk in Shimla's Raj Bhavan has been made the focal point of a mini-shrine to commemorate the event, just as the Shimla Agreement itself has become the source, the Ganga-dhara of India's attitude to Pakistan vis-à-vis Jammu & Kashmir. From the heights of that Shimla accord flowed down-stream the Lahore Declaration, signed on July 2, 1999 by prime ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif. It reiterated “the determination of both countries to implement the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit.” The letter of the Agreement was public knowledge; its spirit remained amorphous, changing meanings into nuance. Signing it, both Mrs Gandhi and Mr Bhutto understood that Pakistan had conceded that the Line of Ceasefire had hardened into the Line of Control and that the undertaking to “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations” precluded any reference to third parties, particularly the United Nations. According to P.N. Dhar (Secretary to Mrs Gandhi), “When Mrs Gandhi, after recounting their points of agreement, finally asked Bhutto, “Is this the understanding on which we will proceed?”, he replied: “Absolutely, Aap mujh par bharosa keejiye (Absolutely, you can trust me).” Each subsequent Indian and Pakistani government has chosen to treat that clause as a malleable Rubik's cube, rotating it to yield different patterns of meaning. The Lahore Declaration has fared no better. Its clause — that both countries “shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir” — has given license to numerous interpretations. Some political cynics assert that cross-border sniping is hoping to do just that. The sanctity of all international protocols is underwritten by an enduring commitment to execute them, regardless of change in national governments. It is precisely because Mr Nawaz Sharif was a signatory to the Lahore Declaration (and by association the seminal Shimla Agreement) and because he was involved directly in letter, in body and in spirit, that the Indian government finds his recent speech at the UN General Assembly so discordant. His Advisor Mr Sartaj Aziz went a step further. He contacted the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked him to retrieve the dust-laden UN Resolution 47/1948, which called for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. Realists would give this appeal as much a chance of success as the South Korean Mr Ban Ki-moon being able to reunify the two Koreas. Mr Nawaz Sharif's volte face at the UN took place after his avuncular trip to New Delhi to attend Mr Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. It has been perceived in India as an almost Kargil-style betrayal of the bonhomie generated by his earlier heart-warming gesture. Five months have passed. Much has happened since. Mr Nawaz Sharif has been beleaguered by demands from his opponents at home to resign, while Mr Modi has received an invigorating mandate in the state elections in Maharashtra and in Haryana. In Maharashtra, his BJP won 122 seats out of a total of 288. This was almost three times more than the seats the BJP garnered in 2009. In Haryana, he gained 47 seats out of 90, more than 10 times BJP's paltry four in 2009. Mr Modi is not one to gloat — at least not publicly. He has good reason to, though. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi's Congress has been trounced in both states, dropping in Maharashtra from 82 seats (2009) to 42 now. If worse could be worse, BJP commands a majority in the bulging wallet of India — Mumbai. Fortified by these results, the BJP can expect to be supported ideologically by Shiv Sena which captured 63 seats, 21 more than Congress. But he that sups with Shiv Sena…. Mr Modi's next steps at diplomacy are of vital significance to Pakistan. Extremists have been heard on Indian television channels demanding that Mr Modi should rescue the “oppressed people of Balochistan and Sindh” from their brutal “masters”. General Musharraf was dismissed by one rabid anchorman as being a “coward” for not answering yet another question about Kargil. And most frighteningly, voices that were once regarded as pro-Pakistan moderates are being denounced now as anti-Indian. There is a sinister echo of a 1971 jingoism in the air. Saner ears prefer to recall the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. They spoke of hope, of a “durable peace and development”, to enable both peoples “to devote their energies for a better future.” (By arrangement with Dawn)
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
The
“Swatchch Bharat” campaign announced by Prime Minister Modi brings back nostalgic memories of “Shram daan” — that once-a-year exercise practised at different stages of one’s life, with varying results.
