7/25/2006

Supremacy of Parliament?

Supremacy of Parliament, YES. Of Parliamentarian’s, NO.

For the past two years or so a phrase has been used more often than not, that “Parliament is Supreme”. Supreme yes yet Supreme Most, NO. Is that what is needed to be told to our “Honorable” parliamentarians and the Honorable Speaker Sir?
Each and every time a question is raised about the validity of a law, is crushed saying, “Parliament is Supreme”. The honorable Speaker Sir saying, “Parliament is Supreme”, rejects (rather refused to accept) a notice by the Supreme Court. An act is passed first in Mumbai and followed by Delhi making all the illegal constructions legal, all in the name of “We are legislators and we have a right to make, amend law”, inspite of Supreme Court thinking otherwise. The Government pushes a law, which is ostensibly an act of saving few individuals (office of profit), again saying, “We are legislators and we have a right to make, amend law, as we please (to please Madame, most of the times)”, Let His Excellency Mr. President agree or not (damn we care)”.” We have got the mandate to rule” goes the rhetoric and we shall force the President or Supreme Court to mend their ways/views since we (I, for you discern:” WHO”) have got the mandate. Of Course, 20% seats and regional parties supporting us-though different agendas- are numerically more than others. A numerical democracy, than a real democracy. A democracy that equates donkey with a horse. A democracy that means any body elected and thus empowered shall be the “MALLIK” of our destiny. And we talk about “Mandate”, whose mandate and who gave it? Did any one party asked votes claiming they will defy the President or saying will make a law where a law abiding citizen will be pushed aside since he/she paid bills or taxes on time and in full and all those who evaded taxes shall be exempted or excused just because they vote in a particular fashion.
I am all for democracy, as long as it is not Numerocracy, as it is being practiced.
What we all have been hearing is that some one got the mandate to “RULE” us and she “SACRIFICED”. Question1.If indeed then why she abdicated her duty? Ouestion2 If She is so enlightned, as she has been projected, then why she didn’t take the responsibility to govern?
Excuse me if I am drifting away from the real issue which is,” Is Parliament Supreme”? Ideally it should be. But is it? I have my doubts.
Few hypothetical questions, necessarily not impossible.
-What if Parliament passes a law, should the govt. feel threatened of loosing power by disqualification of some, rape as a legitimate act of MP’S? Since “Parliament is Supreme”.
-What if Parliament passes a law claiming that speaking against the Govt. is tantamount to being a traitor, hence hanged, since they passed a law?
-What if in the infinite wisdom of our “Selected” representatives we all who are questioning, and God willing Shall always be questioning, declared as Persona-Non granta, since theses parliamentarians are “Supreme”?
By the way, may I ask, who gave them this supremacy? You, any another or me? Had they asked us that they would go and defy the SC? Or asked us to go against the wishes of President? Were any body asked for compromising the security of our children and self? Or did they ask you to vote for them since they believe that they alone have the exclusive right to decide who shall be the makers of our destiny by their doings or undoings? Did any body vote for this govt. or voted against the incumbent govt. then? What is a mandate? For whom? Against whom? And finally for what? Are the questions needs to be answered and answered forthwith.
Just because a govt. is in power by accident does not necessarily mean that they have got the license to rule or ruin the nation, which in any case is much bigger than some or few individuals.
Much as I want to hesitatingly concede that Parliament is “Supreme” yet have lost the confidence in the system.
Post me if you agree or disagree.
Regards,
Prudent Indian

7/22/2006

Reality hits home

Reality hits home
Muzamil Jaleel
UP, Bihar weren’t recruiting grounds for Kashmir jihad. Why is it different for Mumbai?
Security agencies are unable to find a Kashmir link to the Mumbai serial train bombs, unlike the past. The arrests of three suspects — two from Bihar, and a third from Navi Mumbai — made on Friday, in fact, hint at a new phase of terror that is autonomous and perpetrated by a network of home-grown foot soldiers. J&K Director General of Police Gopal Sharma only underlined this when he told the media recently that the pattern of the Mumbai serial blasts is new. No clues have led to groups operating in the state.
This apparent lack of a link between the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai with the epicentre of militancy has thrown up a new challenge for security agencies, especially as it substantiates the viewpoint that an autonomous network has finally come up in the country outside the borders of J&K. And although security agencies here do not rule out the ‘outside hand’ in these blasts, they insist that this time there is the “worrisome involvement” of a local cell made up of “men with normal lives and a clean crime slate” which “masterminded the attack, chose the target and then executed it with precision”.
Terror as a domestic phenomenon is, of course, not new to Mumbai. In 1993, when the metro was rocked by a series of blasts, investigations became easy once the involvement of the D-Company was established. But as the investigations into the 7/11 blasts progresses, the Kashmir link as well as an underworld connection is being ruled out. This may come as a bitter reality check for the country. The emergence of indigenous terror cells among Indian Muslims is certainly a culmination of a process of alienation that has its roots in anti-Muslim riots and subsequent communal polarization. There is also every likelihood that the timing and the targets of these attacks, too, are aimed at sharpening the existing communal division and thus creating an atmosphere conducive to future recruitments.
Notice how recent terror targets have been religiously sensitive places like Varanasi, or timed to coincide with religious occasions — like the Delhi blasts occurring on the eve of the Diwali and Id festivals. Why this apparent objective to trigger communal riots? Ordinary Indian Muslims — outside J&K — had never been attracted to Kashmiri militancy even though they share a common faith with Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistanis. Security agencies in J&K put the number of Indian Muslims who came to join various Kashmiri militant groups over the past 16 years of insurgency at a negligible 50.
Why didn’t Muslim youth from UP, Bihar or Gujarat — unlike youth from Pakistan — not join militant outfits in Kashmir, even though they had no Line of Control to cross, no mountains to negotiate, no army to hide from to reach the Valley? In fact, for them it is just a short journey by train or bus. Thousands of Indian Muslims do come to work as manual labourers in the state, but their inclination to join forces with Kashmiri militants is altogether absent.
Nothing explains this phenomenon more than the case of the Jamat-e-Islami — a cadre-based Islamist party founded by Maulana Abul Ala Moududi in 1941. With partition, it had its Indian and Pakistani chapters. When the Jamat-e-Islami was introduced in Kashmir in 1951, its affinity was always with the Pakistan chapter rather than with the Jamat-e-Islami (Hind). Unlike the Jamat in Pakistan and Kashmir, the Jamat-e-Islami (Hind) has remained an apolitical organisation, with unflinching loyalty to the Indian motherland. In any case, if radical Islam had been a motivation to turn to militancy, then the Al Qaida would certainly have had considerable recruits from among India’s 130 million Muslims. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently boasted that the Al Qaida has not managed a single recruit from India, and he was absolutely right.
Most senior police officers in J&K agree that areas where communal violence is rampant become easy recruitment grounds for militants. Security agencies in Kashmir are currently investigating the presence of some ten Gujarati Muslims taking arms training in the mountains of Tral, where a former seminary student from Maharashtra was killed in an encounter recently.
There are other examples too. Chand Khan — the man who ferried fidayeens from South Kashmir to Akshardham — had told his interrogators in Srinagar that he joined the jihadi group only after Gujarat riots. Azam Ghauri’s evolution in becoming one of India’s most wanted militants has its roots in communal riots. According to the investigations, Ghauri — who had a Naxal past — was present at a meeting organised in Bhiwandi soon after communal violence had ripped it apart in 1985. Ten years later, Ghauri, a young man from a Hyderabadi Muslim family, and his close associate Karim ‘Tunda’ (handicapped), set up a proper terror network for the Lashkar but their main motivation remained avenging the communal riots and their recruits were invariably victims of riots. Gauri was killed in an encounter in 2000.
Then there is Jalees Ansari — a doctor who was arrested in 1994. He decided to leave his job and plant bombs on December 6, 1992 — the day of the Babri demolition. Ansari joined the Tehreek-Islahul-Muslimeen (Movement for Reform among Muslims) — an extremist group founded in Mominpura (Mumbai) to “avenge communal violence against Muslims”.
Going by these recent developments, we can spot new faultlines on the terror map. Violence is no longer limited to the Hindi belt or to Gujarat and Maharashtra, but has travelled all the way to Kerala too. The emergence of National Democratic Front — a 50,000-strong outfit that came up as a reaction to the Babri Masjid demolition — has put this state that prides itself on having the highest literacy rate in the country on the boil.
At a time when Mumbai’s Black Tuesday is being used as political capital by various political parties, it is important not to lose sight of the internal dimension of the latest terror attacks. This, in turn, raises crucial issues. Issues like justice delivery for the victims of the Gujarat riots, and the dangers inherent in blaming the entire Muslim community in India for the acts of a few alienated elements intent on pursuing their politics of revenge.muzamil.jaleel@expressindia.co

Reality hits home?
What is new in this article? Any new findings? Does the reality really hit home? NO.
This is merely an attempt to repeat the hollow excuses often offered to justify the Islamic violence against humanity. Same old thesis of Muslims alleged alienation, sufferings (perceived or real) etc. Every time a bomb explodes anywhere the same old false hood is offered. A Poverty is forcing the Muslims to take to terrorism. B Others (in India Hindus) have alienated the Muslims, some of whom have taken to terrorism out of frustration. C All and every act of terrorism is invariably linked to Gujarat riots, often described as anti Muslims, as if this is justification for the killing of innocent Man, women and children. No serious attempt is ever made to find the truth. Jaleel too has just gone through the usual mundane exercise there for Reality Does Not Hit Home.
What Jaleel should have focused was the inherent faults in the community itself, which is at loggerheads with almost everyone across the globe. To understand this better let us reexamine the theories one by one…
A Poverty: Two things need to be said regarding poverty as an apology.1.Muslims are not the only one who are poor. There are many more Hindus, Sikhs, Christian or others who are equally poor if not more. How many of them are terrorists? 2.Of late many educated and well to do Muslims were behind the worst acts of terrorism. Twin Tower Bombings, London metro bombings, Parliament attack etc .All the terrorist involved were not uneducated poor Muslims. There stand this excuse, Repudated.
B Alleged Alienation of Muslims: This too does not hold any water. In India Kashmiri Pundits are the one who can rightly claim to be alienated. They are worst sufferes, thrown out from their homes, brusied with the memories of rape, loot, aroson, selective killings of their family members. Ethnecially cleansed from the valley. Mr. Jaleel how many of them are terrorists? In every society be it, USA, UK, Russia, Taimor, Spain, France, India everywhere Muslims complain of alienation whereas other communities JewsHindus, Sikhs, Chinese-they live in harmony and are more prosperous. They do not complain alienation. These communities have assimilated themselves with the culture of adopted nations while maintaining their religious and ethnic identities. Why have they not taken to terrorism?
C Gujarat Riots: Here too he is off the mark. The writer suggests that Prior to Gujarat riots there were not any terrorist strikes in India. Every thing was cool and calm and we all were happy and secure. Am I right Mr.Jaleel? Blamining Gujarat riots (I condemn the riots and has no justification for the killings of any body) for all the ills is extremely dangerous argument. What Mr. Jaleel says, if I am correct, is that since Muslims were killed therefore they have taken to terrorism to avenge the killings. He conveniently forgets to mention Godhra Train as if those killed in S4 were dispensiable, any where in his long write up, Godhra and those killed fail to get even a passing reference. How convenient Mr. Jaleel this is a shining example of your objectivity.
I call this argument dangerous because by applying the same logic then Kashmiri Pundits has the strongest case for joining terrorist outfits and they should have taken to arms long ago. By now they should have killed each and every one who killed their family members, raped their sisters and mothers, threw them out of their homes. Would you have given the same argument to justify this terrorism as passionately? Are you suggesting Mr.Jaleel that post Anti Sikh Riots of 1984,all members of the victim’s family should start avenging by killing the members of the political party alleged to have played the role then? If, No? Then what is that you are suggesting?
Mr. Jaleel, respectfully, I beg to differ with you. When I started reading you article I had expectations of an objective analysis (as I always expect from IE) but am disappointed. More than me it is betrayal of truth and objectivity at the altar of political correctness. Worst, it is for the community of Muslims.
Few last words
1.I share your concern for delivering justice for Gujarat Riot victims, however do you still not find Godhra Victims as Humans crying for justice????
2.Please use the platform of IE judiciously, lest we readers are disillusioned totally with this institution.
Regards,
Prudent Indian

7/17/2006

SECULAR MEDIA-STOP THIS NON SENSE
STOP reminding, the resilience and resolve to carry on with the life as if I had a choice. STOP celebrating the spirit of communal harmony, as if every time HINDUS started rioting and killing Muslims as soon as bomb blasted somewhere. STOP pretending that crisis will be over by shutting our eyes. STOP being POLITICALLY CORRECT.STOP THAT. STOP THERE.

Start Thinking; pondering…
-You and me were just plain lucky that we did not get kill in this blast. But shall we be lucky or our children, next time?
-Would you or me had accepted a cheque for RS.500, 000/= because my kin lost life in blast as a magnanimous gesture of LALOO YADAV or SONIA GANDHI in the presence of media?
-How would you or me have felt had there been our friends or family members?
-Has any body seen (even in the night mares) our loved ones in the position of those who lost their lives?
-How and what makes you so confident that you or me are not the next?
-What is the reason for you to believe that you or me shall not die (wasted), in the next bomb blast?
-How would have you felt, God forbid, incase a near and dear one of your or mine had lost life and `Secular’ media justified, “LIFE MUST GO ON” and celebrate the spirit of `Resilience’?
-Once again would you have just accepted the platitudes of the SARDAR MANMOHAN SINGH that INDIA WILL NOT KNEEL TO TERRORISM and goes on with the company of Arjun and Antulay?

If answer to all the above mentioned are NO then what are you thinking? What have you done? Whom are you waiting for? And why are you waiting?

This is Kal-youg, no Lord Krishna is going to preach you about your `Dharma’, and he has done it once.

History shows that no Invader has ever conquered India without the support of an in sider (enemy). Be it Jaichand or Mir Jaffer.If it were them, then, than who are Arjun and Antulay?

START THINKING AND DO SOMETHING.TIME IS SHORT AND SO IS THE LIFE.

Regards.
Prudent Indian

Also visit:
The Prudent Insurance & Financial Solutions

7/13/2006

Arjun,Antulay and Mumbai Blasts

Dear Friends,
I am reproducing a front-page report published on today’s Indian Express.
Regards,
Prudent Indian
NEW DELHI, JULY 13:At a Cabinet discussion on the Government’s response to the terror attacks in Mumbai, while National Security Advisor M K Narayanan pointed a finger at Pakistan, two Ministers tried to make the point that it was routine for Hindu groups to blame Muslims for acts of violence.
HRD Minister Arjun Singh, sources said, quoted a retired Maharashtra judge as having alleged that the attempted attack on RSS headquarters in Nagpur was a frame-up by the Sangh itself. And Minority Affairs Minister A R Antulay cited reports that a mystery blast in Maharashtra’s Nanded in April was orchestrated by Hindus posing as Muslims.
Sources said this prompted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to urge the Ministers to refrain from raising “divisive issues” in the Cabinet before bringing them to his attention.
Meanwhile, holding Pakistan responsible for infiltration from PoK, Nepal and Bangladesh, Narayanan indicated to the Cabinet that Pak-based groups were behind the Mumbai serial blasts and all efforts were on to nail the link.
Home Minister Shivraj Patil briefed the Cabinet on the attacks and steps taken by the government. This included trip of Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav to Mumbai and the compensation given to the victims.
Clearly not satisfied by the Home Minister’s reply, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar requested NSA Narayanan to give his assessment on the issue. The NSA admitted that he only had a “macro picture” and not the details of the twin attacks. shishir.gupta@expressindia.com
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/8470.html

Secularism and politics of Secularism 2.

Secularism and politics of Secularism 2.
Role of the Media

Usual Suspects and Usual Secularists.
Once again Mumbai has been ripped apart.200 innocent men, women and children lost their lives for the only reason that they were soft targets and living in India. India, which is “SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”. We Indians have become so used to about the loss of lives that it no longer affects us any more than, few days. Political bigwigs visit the sites dutifully announces ex-gratis payments, PM condemns and constitute an enquiry, some reports, studio discussions by the “secular” news channels, long winding articles by the “eminent” editors of English press extolling the virtues of “secular and liberal thinking” preaching us to maintain communal harmony and the deaths are forgotten as mere statistics and then every thing goes back to the normal till next attack and the same mundane routine to be repeated.

It has happened so many times and has been happening with such sickening frequency that even the “Liberal and Secular” finds it difficult to articulate their views so that they can defend their brand of “Secularism”.

Post Mumbai, this brigade has been seeking to divert the attention from the attacks and the usual suspects to “Resilience and Resolve” of the public to carry on with their lives. Eminient media personalities ably supported by Javed Ahktars, Shabana Azamis, Mahesh Bhatts, and Rahul Boses etc. have taken it upon themselves to tell us how the people have risen above the terror designed to ferment “communal strife” and defeated the designs of misguided elements. As if the “Resilience and Resolve” of the people were ever in doubt. How and what does a poor man on the street, train, market, office or any where do but to carry on, does he really have a choice? NO.

Media in their studios and the editors in their high-rise offices choose to ignore in their infinite wisdom about the loss of life and the pain of the victims over some lofty ideas of “Secularism” and “communal harmony”, they can not be more farther from the realities. Much of their hyperbole is politics and political beliefs. At times when their focus should be on the perpetrators of crimes they choose to focus on the issues which their political friends want them to. First and foremost are to blame BJP and SANGH PARIVAR for all the ills even if they have no relation or relevance. Second priority is to shift the focus from Islamic Fundamentalism by floating some absurd theories. This “secular brigade” started calling the cold-blooded murderers as “MILLITANTS”. This brigade says that Gujarat Riot’s and Disputed Structure at Ayodhya are the provocation behind this group’s acts and are described as oppressed and aggrieved people (only Muslims) who kill with meticulous planning. But if you ask them, if the victims of 1984 Anti Sikh Riots and all the family members of countless civilians, who have either been killed or maimed by these Islamic Terrorists in Kashmir and other parts of India, should too take to arms and start taking revenge. No way! “Secularists” wants you to believe that this right to avenge right or wrong, is the exclusive right of Muslims and they are still considered secular, now since you have asked this question and happens to be Hindu you are Communal. Further how many times you have seen these bleeding heart TV SECULARISTS espousing the cause of Sikh Victims and Hindu Kashmiri Pundits. The moment you ask them this logical question they all will shout you down by calling you “communal”, “Fascist” etc.

Let us just see who are these secularist and their media houses, who are the most SECULAR and on the forefront they are …
NDTV:Owned by Pranoy Roy whose proximity to Madame Sonia is well known. His wife Radhika Roy is the sister of Brinda Karat of CPI (M)’s boss Prakash Karat. Need we say more on Barkhas, Vikrams, Abhigyans, Debangs and their friends and guests who appear on the channels and debates?
The Hindustan Times: Owned by Shovana Bhartiya d/o Birla. Their proximity with Congress dates back to history and Shovana has been elected to Rajya Sabha (courtesy congress) for her services.
By the way does any body know the name of Ht’s editor?
Now the leading paper from the south The Hindu is just an extended organ of the Communist Ideology.
This is the one paper I respect most, The Indian Express. Yet, time and again it has to prove it’s secular credentials by Naming Narrender Modi and Gujarat in the each article it writes, truthfully though, against Islamic Fundamentalism. At most of the times neither Modi nor Gujarat warrants any mention yet they are dragged lest this paper be called less Secular or worst “Communal”.
Now about the only paper that can be described as the most fearless, straightforward and objective, who has no pretensions to be called “Secular”. This paper is The Pioneer.Predictibly this paper is dismissed as “communal”.
So is the case with AajTak, which too is considered, as close to BJP though not branded as communal by “secularis” is a border case.
Rest channels are either too young or too commercial that they have more entertainment value than serious content.

This is what is the analysis of National Media. If they are what they are then one can safely assume the situation at the regional level and the regional press.

All this is not to suggest that all media is not as objective as it had been, but more or less prejudiced in favor or against. Role of the media Pre. And post independence had been praise worthy till 1971.During and after emergency polarization of media started and completed with the advent of visual media.

Nevertheless, the visual media has such a huge impact and it is high time they should place the national interest above their petty ideological beliefs and leanings.

The war cannot be won by studio discussions and ignoring the facts by being just politically correct.
Regards,
Prudent Indian

Also visit our web site
The Prudent Insurance & Financial Solutions










7/12/2006

ManMohan and Golden Silence

When was the last time you heard the honorable PM spoken on any issue facing the nation? At least I fail to recall. Except, of course the last press conference, if he did speak at all!!!

Clearly no one can claim that he/she knows for sure what is going on in his Heart and Head. Perhaps Madame Sonia? The PM has maintained an enigmatic silence through out his two years in power. He has rarely expressed his views on any matter concerning governance; an objective study of the past events reinforces this perception that he is there just to keep the seat warm for the member of “FAMILY”.

His tenure started with the formation of his illustrious cabinet. Such towering “Statesmen” Laloo, Shibu Soren, Taslimuddin, Jai Prakash Yadav, M A Fatami and many more. Congress men/women who had recently lost their elections. Start was all but auspicious.

Shibu Soren episode.
Minister in the govt.accused with murder charge chased by police armed with an arrest warrant goes under ground after meeting the Home Minister.
PM response: Nil.

Bofors kick back release
Both PM and Sonia denied that they were involved. Worst PM said he did not know
Arjun Singh, Ramdoss, Meera Kumar, Bihar Assembly Fraud on constitution, Goa Episode, Jharkhand Assembly Fraud, Office Of Profit controversy and the Sonia Bachao7 Proposed Ordinance etc.etc.On none of the above mentioned issues our wise PM took the people in confidence and spoke.

Ostensibly, the decision of Sonia to nominate Man Mohan as PM was to manage the Govt.and political party as two entities and in an effective way. Yet this has not worked out. Government and the governance is nowhere near the satisfactory level even. Sprilling price rises and an economy of shortages has severely affected the image of PM as an economist. On the political front Sonia too has nothing to claim credit for, this despite her minions repeated eulogies of her “REUNICATION”.

The UPA is United (Laloo vs. Paswan, Left vs. Congress, NCP vs. congress) Progressive (Really what with reservations, price rise, farmers suicide, putting all much needed disinvestments on hold, repealing POTA when all the nations are making stringent laws against terrorism) Alliance (post elections for only sharing the loot and keeping BJP away from power). UPA can do better with a name as Unholy Perverts Association.

Time is not on the side of Man Mohan. He has to demonstrate that he is what people believed he was. People’s trust in him is eroding faster than he realizes.

A word for caution Dear PM, Congressmen and women are not known for being benevolent any body else than the “FAMILY” and pull the carpets under the feet of any body whom they feel as dispensable. Remember Sita Ram Kesri and more recently Natwar Lal, OOPs… Natwar Singh.


Also visit our web site:

The Prudent Insurance & Financial Solutions

7/11/2006

Saner Voice

Dear Friends,
I am reproducing the article published in The Indian Express dated July 8th.2006.The writer Shri Bhanu Pratap Mehta is the same person who had resigned from the Knowledge Commission in protest against the Arjun Singh’s attempt to introduce OBC reservation in the Institutes of higher learning.
This article is very enlightening and in the interest of my guests, I take the liberty to share this article with you all in case you missed it.
Regards,
Anil Joshi

Shri. Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes…
The treatment of Dr Venugopal and the response to it not only expose the government yet again, it also displays the moral bankruptcy of our academic culture Even by the dismally low standards of institutional propriety that we practice, the manner in which the AIIMS Board has treated its Director Dr Venugopal was nothing short of scandalous. To have a board summarily recommend the dismissal of a Director without properly filing charges, without giving him an opportunity to reply and largely on the pretext that he was openly critical of the government—does not bode well for the future of AIIMS.
The High Court’s stay order in the matter is an acknowledgment of serious prima facie impropriety. The violation of any principle of natural justice in this matter is so evident, that you wonder what the Board could have been thinking in acting in the manner it did.
One suspects the issue was not simply getting rid of Dr Venugopal. It was to send a message to all heads of institutions: fall in line or else. The aftereffect will far outlive any protection Dr Venugopal receives from the courts. The political battle for restoring the integrity of academic institutions has to begin, not end, with this order.
This episode reflects badly on the Prime Minister and the consistent failure of his leadership to set the right moral tone in institutional matters. Doubtless, the Prime Minister’s Office will distance him, saying this was the Board’s decision. But the Office of the Prime Minister is considerably diminished by this episode. After all, it was the very same PMO, which had appointed a committee headed by Dr Valiyathan to examine what ails AIIMS a few days ago. Even that committee, to which the PM had directly given his blessings, was a breach of propriety because it had one of the interested parties in this conflict—the Health Secretary—as a member. But for a minister to initiate a precipitous action, without even waiting for this committee to make its report public, shows nothing but open contempt for the Prime Minister’s authority
It gives credence to the charge that this government is getting out of control. Various members of the cabinet are charting their own course, intoxicated by their own power and driven by their own agendas—while the Prime Minister watches helplessly. There is one thing Mr Ramdoss and Mr Arjun Singh are right about: power flows to those who exercise it. And it is up to the PM to restore his lost credibility. Integrity should have more connotations than just honesty.
But this episode reflects badly on the government in another way.
The bottom line is this: there is now a systematic attempt by this government to convert institutions of higher learning into mere appendages of the state. The disease that had killed off state-level institutions is now haunting Central institutions as well.
Various directives from the government are making it clear that this government wants more control over institutions of higher education. It operates with a bizarre conception of accountability — where accountability has been reduced to accountability of institutions to government nominees, not accountability through choice, competition and transparency.
Even the Moily Committee, while it may do some good in terms of recommending expansion, nevertheless, is a breach of propriety, for it makes the cardinal mistake of assuming that a Central Committee should be empowered to recommend the nature and extent of expansion, rather than universities themselves. In many ways, we are now back on the verge of the worst days of the ‘70s, where a Left-Congress combine conspired to ruin Indian Higher Education. That strategy was based on a triple cocktail that is poisoning the Indian system: populism, state control and exercise of arbitrary discretion, and buying out teacher support with perverse incentives like automatic promotion schemes.
The current government strategy is similar: foist your agenda on institutions and then buy out the support of teachers by dangling carrots like increased retirement ages and new pay packets. Some of these measures are necessary, but they are designed not to improve academic incentives but as palliative to defuse protest. Admittedly, many politicians, including some on the Left, have expressed their consternation in the AIIMS case, but few will acknowledge that its cause lies deep in the penchant for statism and political control that should be disavowed.
It was to the great credit of Prof Pental and Prof S K Agrawal to have recorded their notes of dissent. It is difficult for outsiders to imagine the kinds of pressures government is bringing to bear upon those who dare criticize it. But the exceptionalism of their dissent only raises the larger question: Why is the academic community not standing up for academic values? All professional tribes have their disagreements. But whether we are for or against quotas should be immaterial in this instance. What is at stake is nothing less than the integrity of academic life.
Perhaps it is a sign of how denuded of spirit our academic culture has become, that we are the first to abdicate our own responsibilities and powers to government. It is time we, as a profession, stop giving aid and succor to a wholesale government takeover of our institutions. This episode does not augur well for tolerance.
The fact that we have stopped thinking in terms of institutional proprieties is a sign of a deep and pervasive intolerance and instrumentalism creeping in the system. In this scheme of things, the ends justify the means. If people oppose you, you have the right to shut them out using whatever means appropriate. It takes an inordinate amount of self-denial and dedication to enter academia these days, especially for those who are accomplished. The courts have provided a reprieve but the institution remains bruised.
This has been a crushing and demoralizing week for so many youngsters: more than ninety per cent marks and no hope for admission. And then we go and destroy the few good institutions that remain. While power is intoxicating ministers in this government to the point where ordinary academic proprieties are beyond them, society has to face up to a larger challenge. For fundamentally, a nation which denies its institutions of Higher Learning certain privileges, shows signs of cultural, institutional and social decay.

The writer is president, Center for Policy Research, New Delhi.

Also Visit:
The Prudent Insurance & Financial Solutions