It is not just the Constitution of India but also wisdom contained in several of our sacred texts and classical literature which guide Parliamentarians in the world’s largest democracy. From the entry gates of both Houses of Parliament to the domes to the lobby and lifts, our elected representatives are reminded constantly of their ‘Dharma’, their duty to the society and the nation.
What’s more, these canons and quotations from the sacred scriptures also guide the lawmakers on their conduct within and outside the Parliament.
‘Speak the truth. Follow the rules of righteous conduct”, is the English translation of the sentence inscribed on the top of the entry gate to the Rajya Sabha. The statement was part of the convocation address to the outgoing students incorporated in the Shikshavalli of the Taittireeyopanishad of the Krishna Yajurveda. It is indeed a message worthy to be emulated by all Parliamentarians.
Another message taken from the Bhagwad Gita (18-45) and inscribed on the top of the entry gate to the Rajya Sabha is equally relevant. “Every individual attains fulfillment of life and fame only on account of discharging the duties prescribed for him/her”, it says.
Reminding the Government or the ruling class of its responsibility towards the masses, this famous quotation from Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ says, “In the happiness of the subjects lies the King’s happiness, in their welfare his welfare; what pleases himself the king shall not consider good but whatever pleases his subjects the king shall consider good”.
Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, former Governor of Jharkhand and Bihar and presently Rajya Sabha Member of BJP Justice Dr M Rama Jois in his recently published compilation ‘Message from Parliament House, Bharat’ has sought to remind the Parliamentarians of this hitherto ignored aspect of parliamentary life by compiling many such quotations scattered all over the circular building.
For example, a quotation from Manusmriti, most appropriate for the MPs, is inscribed above lift 2, which says “Either one may not enter the Assembly Hall, or having entered, he/she must speak truth in a righteous way. The one who does not speak and the one who speaks falsely will be a sinner.”
And inscribed in golden letters on the dome near lift no 1 is a saying from the Mahabharata (5-35-58) which offers a vivid commentary on the duty to speak truth in an Assembly.
“That is not an Assembly where there are no elders; They are not elders, who do not speak with righteousness; That speech is not righteous which is devoid of truthfulness; That is not the truth which contains deceit.”
In a sage counsel to the ruling party to take along everyone, accommodate all views and adopt a consensual approach to governance, a verse from Shukraneeti (Chapter 2-3), on the dome near the lift no.4, says, “the Ruler must always be wise and intelligent. Even so he should not stand upon his own views at any time, rather he should consider the views of the Members of the House, officers, people at large and others who are present in the House and then take his own decision”.
The democratic character of the nation since the days of yore is also amply reflected in the following quotation from Kaut inscribed on the Parliament building. It says, “the exercise of sovereign power (Rajatva) is possible only with assistance. A single wheel can never move forward (the carriage of the State). Therefore, the King shall appoint Ministers and take their advice”.
Encapsulating the importance of consensual politics is the saying from the Panchatantra, which greets one’s eyes from above the gate of the Central Hall.
“The attitude to divide people into two categories of ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ is the characteristic of petty-minded people. For broad-minded people, the entire world is nothing but one family”.
Highlighting the need for bringing about the much-needed change from within, an Arabic quotation inscribed in the arc-shaped outer lobby of the Lok Sabha states,“Almighty God will not change the condition of any people unless they bring about a change in themselves”.
And one sentence from the Mundakopanishad that is engraved wherever the Emblem of India is inscribed all over the temple of democracy, says it all- ‘Satyameva Jayate’ (Truth will Triumph Always).
It’s high time our Parliamentarians revisit these profound messages scattered all over the sanctum sanctorum of democracy, particularly when the credibility of the institution itself is at stake.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
JP's Unpublished Letter to Mrs Indira Gandhi
Testament of Protest - An Open Letter to Mrs. Indira Gandhi
- Jayaprakash Narayan
JP wrote this letter on December 5 1975 from the Jaslok Hospital in Bombay. It was of course not published in the Indian press, but was secretly circulating. The Far Eastern Economic Review published from Hong Kong carried the full text of the letter in its issue of February 20, 1976.
*********************************************************************************
‘Dear Prime Minister,
I am appalled at press reports of your speeches and interviews. (The very fact that you have to say something every day to justify your action implies a guilty conscience). Having muzzled the press and every kind of public dissent, you continue with your distortions and untruth without fear of criticism or contradiction. If you think that in this way you will be able to justify yourself in the public eye and damn the Opposition to political perdition, you are sadly mistaken. If you doubt this, you may test it by revoking the Emergency, restoring to the people their fundamental rights, restoring the freedom of the press, releasing all those whom you have imprisoned or detained for no other crime than performing their patriotic duty. Nine years, Madam, is not a short period of time for the people, who are gifted with a sixth sense, to have found you out.
The burden of your song, as I have been able to discover, is that (a) there was a plan to paralyse the Government, (b) that one person had been trying to spread disaffection among the ranks of the civil and military forces. These seem to be your major notes. But there have been also minor notes. Every now and then you have been doling out your obiter dicta, such as the nation being more important than democracy and about the suitability of social democracy to India, and more in the same vein.
As I am the villain of the piece, let me put the record straight. This may be of no interest to you – for all your distortion and untruth are willful and deliberate – but at least the truth would have been recorded. About the plan to paralyse the Government. There was no such plan and you know it. Let me state the facts. were being formed from the village upwards to the Block (ward) level. Later on, the process was to be taken up, hopefully, to the district and state level.
Of all the states of India, it was in Bihar alone where there was a people’s movement. But there, too, according to the Chief Mini-ster’s many statements, it had fizzled out long ago, if it had ever existed. But the truth is – and you should know if your ubiquitous Intelligence has served you right – that it was spreading and percolating deep down in the countryside. Until the time of my arrest “janata sarkars” (people’s organizations)
If you have cared to look into the programme of the janata sarkars, you would have found out that for the most part it was constructive, such as regulating the public distribution system, checking corruption at the lower levels of administration, implementing the land reform laws, settling disputes through the age-old custom of conciliation and arbitration, assuring a fair deal to Harijans, curbing such social evils as “talak” and “dahez” (divorce and the dowry system) etc. There was nothing in all this that by any stretch of imagination could be called subversive. Only where the “janata sarkars” were solidly organized were such programmes as non-payment of taxes taken up. At the peak of the movement in urban areas an attempt was made for some days, through dharna and picketing, to stop the working of Government offices. At Patna, whenever the Assembly opened, attempts were made to persuade the members to resign and to prevent them peacefully from going in. All these were calculated programmes of civil disobedience, and thousands of men and women were arrested all over the state.
If all this adds up to an attempt to paralyse the Bihar government, well, it was the same kind of attempt as was made during the freedom struggle through non-cooperation and satyagraha to paralyse the British government. But that was a government established by force, whereas the Bihar government and legislature are both constitutionally established bodies. What right has anyone to ask an elected government and elected legislature to go? This is one of your favourite questions. But it has been answered umpteen times by competent persons, including well-known constitutional lawyers. The answer is that in a democracy the people, too, have the right to ask for the resignation of an elected government if it has gone corrupt and has been misruling. And if there is a legislature that persists in supporting such a government it too must go so that the people might choose better representatives.
But in that case, how can it be determined what the people want? In the usual democratic manner. In the case of Bihar, the mammoth rallies and processions held in Patna, the thousands of constituency meetings held all over the State, the three-days’ Bihar bandh, the memorable happenings of November 4, and the largest ever meeting held at the Gandhi maidan, on November 18, were a convincing measure of the people’s will. And what had the Bihar government and Congress to show on their side? The miserable counter-offensive of November 16, which had been master-minded by Shri Barooah and on which, according to reliable reports, the fantastic sum of Rs.60 lakhs rupees were spent. But if that was not conclusive enough proof, I had asked repeatedly for a plebiscite. But you were afraid to face the people.
While I am on the Bihar movement, let me mention, another important point that would illumine the politics of such a type of movement. The students of Bihar did not start their movement just off the bat as it were. After formulating their demands at a conference they had met the Chief Minister and the Education Minister. They had had several meetings. But unfortunately the inept and corrupt Bihar Govern-ment did not take the students seriously. Then the latter GHERAOED the Assembly. The sad events of that day precipitated the Bihar movement. Even then the students did not demand the resignation of the Ministry nor the dissolution of the Assembly. It was after several weeks during which firing, lathi (baton) charges and indiscriminate arrests took place that the Students’ Action Committee felt compelled to put up that demand. It was at that point that the Rubicon was crossed.
Thus in Bihar, the Government was given a chance to settle the issues across the table. None of the demands of the students was unreasonable or non-negotiable. But the Bihar government preferred the method of struggle, i.e. unparalleled repression. It was the same in Uttar Pradesh. In either case, the Government rejected the path of negotiation, of trying to settle the issues across the table, and chose the path of strife. Had it been otherwise, there would have been no movement at all.
I have pondered over this riddle: Why did not those govern-ments act wisely? The conclusion I have arrived at is that the main hurdle has been corruption. Some-how the governments have been unable to deal with corruption in their ranks, particularly at the top level – the ministerial level itself. The corruption has been the central point of the movement, particularly corruption in the government and the administration.
Be that as it may, except for Bihar there was no movement of its kind in any other state of India. In Uttar Pradesh, though satyagraha had started in April, it was far from becoming a people’s movement. In some other states though, struggle committees had been formed, there seemed to be no possibility of a mass movement anywhere. And as the general election to the Lok Sabha was drawing near, the attention of the opposition parties was turned more towards the coming electoral struggle than to any struggle involving civil disobedience.
Thus, the plan of which you speak, the plan to paralyse the Government, is a figment of your imagination thought up to justify your totalitarian measures.
But suppose I grant you for a minute, for argument’s sake, that there was such a plan, do you honestly believe that your erstwhile colleague, the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, and Chandrashekhar, a member of the Congress Working Committee, were also a party to it? Then why have they also been arrested and many others like them?
No, dear Prime Minister, there was no plan to paralyse the Government. If there was a plan, it was a simple, innocent and short-time plan to continue until the Supreme Court decided your appeal. It was this plan that was announced at the Ramlila grounds by Nanaji Deshmukh on June 25 and which was the subject matter of my speech that evening. The programme was for a selected number of persons to offer satyagraha before or near your residence in support of the demand that you should step down until the Supreme Court’s judgement on your appeal. The programme was to continue for seven days in Delhi, after which it was to be taken up in the states. And, as I have said above, it was to last only until the judgement of the Supreme Court. I do not see what is subversive or dangerous about it. In a democracy the citizen has an inalienable right to civil disobedience when he finds that other channels of redress or reform have dried up. It goes without saying that the satyagrahi willingly invites and accepts his lawful punishment. This is the dimension added to democracy by Gandhi. What an irony that it should be obliterated in Gandhi’s own India!
It should be noted – and it is a very important point – that even this programme of a satyagraha would not have occurred to the Opposition had you remained content with quietly clinging on to your office. But you did not do it. Through your henchmen you had rallies and demonstrations organized in front of your residence (begging you not to resign). You addressed these rallies and, justifying your stand, advanced spurious arguments and heaped calumny on the head of the Opposition. An effigy of the High Court Judge was burnt before your residence. Posters appeared in the city suggesting some kind of link between the Judge and the CIA. When such despicable happenings were taking place every day, the Opposition had no alternative but to counteract the mischief. And how did it decided to do it? Not by rowdyism but by orderly satyagraha, self-sacrifice.
It was this ‘plan’ and not any imaginary plan to paralyse the Government that has aroused your ire and cost the people their liberties and dealt a deathblow to their democracy.
And why was the freedom of the press being suppressed? Not because the Indian press was irresponsible, dishonest or anti-Government. In fact, nowhere under conditions of freedom is the press more responsible, reasonable and fair than it has been in India. The truth is that your anger against it was aroused because on the question of your resignation, after the High Court’s judgement, some of the papers took a line that was highly unpalatable to you. And when on the morrow of the Supreme Court judgement all the metropolitan papers, including the wavering The Times of India came out with well-reasoned and forceful editorials advising you to quit, freedom of the press became too much for you to stomach. That cooked the goose of the Indian press, and you struck your deadly blow. It staggers one’s imagination to think that so valuable a freedom as the freedom of the press, the very life-breath of democracy, can be snuffed out because of the personal pique of a Prime Minister.
You have accused the Opposition of trying to lower the prestige and position of the country’s Prime Minister. But in reality, the boot is on the other leg. No one has done more to lower the position and prestige of that great office than yourself. Can you ever think of the Prime Minister of a democratic country who cannot even vote in his Parliament because he has been found guilty of corrupt electoral practices? The Supreme Court may reverse the High Court’s judgement – most probably it will be in this atmosphere of terror – but as long as that is not done your guilt and your deprivation of your right to vote remain)1 .
As for the “one person” who is supposed to have tried to sow dissatisfaction in the armed and police forces, he denies the charge. All that he has done is to make the men and officers of the forces conscious of their duties and responsibilities. Whatever he has said in that connection is within the law, the Constitution, the Army Act, and the Police Act.
So much for your major points, the plea to paralyse the Government and the attempt to sow dissatisfaction in the armed and police forces. Now a few of your minor points and obiter dicta.
You are reported to have said that democracy is not more important than the nation. Are you not presuming too much, Madam Prime Minister? You are not the only one who cares for the nation. Among those whom you have detained or imprisoned there are many who have done as much for the nation as you. And everyone of them is as good a patriot as yourself. So, please do not apply salt to our wounds by lecturing to us about the nation.
Moreover, it is a false choice that you have formulated. There is no choice between democracy and the nation. It was for the good of the nation that the people of India declared in the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, that “we, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute into a Sovereign Democratic Republic … give to ourselves this Constitution.” This democratic Constitution cannot be changed into a totalitarian one by a mere ordinance or a law of Parliament. That can be done only by the people of India themselves in their new Constituent Assembly, especially elected for that special purpose. If Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity have not been rendered to “all its citizens” even after a quarter of century of signing of that Constitution, the fault is not that of the Constitution or of democracy but of the Congress party that has been in power in Delhi all these years. It is precisely because of that failure that there is so much unrest among the people and the youth. Repression is no remedy for that. On the other hand, it only compounds the failure.
I no doubt see that the papers are full these days of reports of new policies, new drives, show of new enthusiasm. Apparently you are trying to make up for lost time, that is to say, you are making a show of doing here and now what you failed to do in nine years. But your 20 points2 will go the same way as your 10 points did and the “stray thoughts”. But I assure you this time the people will not be fooled. And I assure you of another thing too: a party of self-seekers and spineless opportunists and “jee-huzurs” such as the Congress, alas, has become, can never do anything worthwhile. (Not all Congressmen are such. There are quite a few exceptions, such as those who have been deprived of their Party membership and some of them their freedom. There will be a lot of propaganda and much ado on paper but on the ground level the situation will not change. The condition of the poor – and they are in great majority over the greater part of the country – has been worsening over the past years. It would be enough if the downward trend were arrested. But for that your whole approach to politics and economics will have to change.
I have written the above in utter frankness without mincing words. I have done so not out of anger or so as to get even with you in words. No, that would be a show of impotence. Nor does it show any lack of appreciation for the care that is being taken of my health. I have done it only to place the naked truth before you, which you have been trying to cover up and distort.
Having performed this unpleasant duty, may I conclude with a few parting words of advice? You know I am an old man. My life’s work is done. After Prabha’s3 going I have nothing and no one to live for. My brother and my nephew have their family and my younger sister – the elder died years ago – has her sons and daughters. I have given all my life, after finishing education, to the country and asked for nothing in return. So, I shall be content to die a prisoner under your regime.
Would you listen to the advice of such a man? Please, do not destroy the foundations that the Father of the Nation, including your noble father, had laid down. There is nothing but strife and suffering along the path that you have taken. You inherited a great tradition, noble values and a working democracy. Do not leave behind a miserable wreck of all that. It would take a long time to put all that together again. For it would be put together again, I have no doubt. People who fought British imperialism and humbled it cannot accept indefinitely the indignity and shame of totalitarianism. The spirit of man can never be vanquished, no matter how deeply suppressed. In establishing your personal dictatorship, you have buried it deep. But it will rise from the grave. Even in Russia, it is slowly coming up.
You have talked of social democracy. What a beautiful image those words call to the mind. But you have seen in east-ern and central Europe how ugly is the reality: Naked dictatorship and in the ultimate analysis Russian overlordship. Please, please do not push India towards that terrible fate.
And may I ask to what purpose all these draconian measures? In order to be able to carry out the 20 points? But who was preventing you from carrying out the 10 points? All the discontent, the protest, the satyagraha were due precisely to the fact that you were not doing anything to implement your programme, inadequate as it was, to lighten the misery and burden under which the people and youth were groaning. This is what Chandrashekhar, Mohan Dharia, Krishna Kant and their friends have been saying for which they have been punished.
You have talked of “drift” in the country. But was that due to opposition or to me? The drift was because of your lack of decision, direction and drive. You seem to act swiftly and dramatically only when your personal position is threatened. Once that is assured, the drift begins. Dear Indiraji, please do not identify yourself with the nation. You are not immortal, India is.
You have accused the Opposition and me of every kind of villainy. But let me assure you that if you do the right things – for instance, your 20 points, tackling corruption at ministerial levels, electoral reforms, etc., take the Opposition into confidence, heed its advice – you will receive the willing cooperation of everyone of us. For that you need not destroy democracy. The ball is in your court. It is for you to decide.
With these parting words, let me bid you farewell. May God be with you.
- Jayaprakash
Courtesy : Far Eastern Economic Review, February 20, 1976.
- Jayaprakash Narayan
JP wrote this letter on December 5 1975 from the Jaslok Hospital in Bombay. It was of course not published in the Indian press, but was secretly circulating. The Far Eastern Economic Review published from Hong Kong carried the full text of the letter in its issue of February 20, 1976.
*********************************************************************************
‘Dear Prime Minister,
I am appalled at press reports of your speeches and interviews. (The very fact that you have to say something every day to justify your action implies a guilty conscience). Having muzzled the press and every kind of public dissent, you continue with your distortions and untruth without fear of criticism or contradiction. If you think that in this way you will be able to justify yourself in the public eye and damn the Opposition to political perdition, you are sadly mistaken. If you doubt this, you may test it by revoking the Emergency, restoring to the people their fundamental rights, restoring the freedom of the press, releasing all those whom you have imprisoned or detained for no other crime than performing their patriotic duty. Nine years, Madam, is not a short period of time for the people, who are gifted with a sixth sense, to have found you out.
The burden of your song, as I have been able to discover, is that (a) there was a plan to paralyse the Government, (b) that one person had been trying to spread disaffection among the ranks of the civil and military forces. These seem to be your major notes. But there have been also minor notes. Every now and then you have been doling out your obiter dicta, such as the nation being more important than democracy and about the suitability of social democracy to India, and more in the same vein.
As I am the villain of the piece, let me put the record straight. This may be of no interest to you – for all your distortion and untruth are willful and deliberate – but at least the truth would have been recorded. About the plan to paralyse the Government. There was no such plan and you know it. Let me state the facts. were being formed from the village upwards to the Block (ward) level. Later on, the process was to be taken up, hopefully, to the district and state level.
Of all the states of India, it was in Bihar alone where there was a people’s movement. But there, too, according to the Chief Mini-ster’s many statements, it had fizzled out long ago, if it had ever existed. But the truth is – and you should know if your ubiquitous Intelligence has served you right – that it was spreading and percolating deep down in the countryside. Until the time of my arrest “janata sarkars” (people’s organizations)
If you have cared to look into the programme of the janata sarkars, you would have found out that for the most part it was constructive, such as regulating the public distribution system, checking corruption at the lower levels of administration, implementing the land reform laws, settling disputes through the age-old custom of conciliation and arbitration, assuring a fair deal to Harijans, curbing such social evils as “talak” and “dahez” (divorce and the dowry system) etc. There was nothing in all this that by any stretch of imagination could be called subversive. Only where the “janata sarkars” were solidly organized were such programmes as non-payment of taxes taken up. At the peak of the movement in urban areas an attempt was made for some days, through dharna and picketing, to stop the working of Government offices. At Patna, whenever the Assembly opened, attempts were made to persuade the members to resign and to prevent them peacefully from going in. All these were calculated programmes of civil disobedience, and thousands of men and women were arrested all over the state.
If all this adds up to an attempt to paralyse the Bihar government, well, it was the same kind of attempt as was made during the freedom struggle through non-cooperation and satyagraha to paralyse the British government. But that was a government established by force, whereas the Bihar government and legislature are both constitutionally established bodies. What right has anyone to ask an elected government and elected legislature to go? This is one of your favourite questions. But it has been answered umpteen times by competent persons, including well-known constitutional lawyers. The answer is that in a democracy the people, too, have the right to ask for the resignation of an elected government if it has gone corrupt and has been misruling. And if there is a legislature that persists in supporting such a government it too must go so that the people might choose better representatives.
But in that case, how can it be determined what the people want? In the usual democratic manner. In the case of Bihar, the mammoth rallies and processions held in Patna, the thousands of constituency meetings held all over the State, the three-days’ Bihar bandh, the memorable happenings of November 4, and the largest ever meeting held at the Gandhi maidan, on November 18, were a convincing measure of the people’s will. And what had the Bihar government and Congress to show on their side? The miserable counter-offensive of November 16, which had been master-minded by Shri Barooah and on which, according to reliable reports, the fantastic sum of Rs.60 lakhs rupees were spent. But if that was not conclusive enough proof, I had asked repeatedly for a plebiscite. But you were afraid to face the people.
While I am on the Bihar movement, let me mention, another important point that would illumine the politics of such a type of movement. The students of Bihar did not start their movement just off the bat as it were. After formulating their demands at a conference they had met the Chief Minister and the Education Minister. They had had several meetings. But unfortunately the inept and corrupt Bihar Govern-ment did not take the students seriously. Then the latter GHERAOED the Assembly. The sad events of that day precipitated the Bihar movement. Even then the students did not demand the resignation of the Ministry nor the dissolution of the Assembly. It was after several weeks during which firing, lathi (baton) charges and indiscriminate arrests took place that the Students’ Action Committee felt compelled to put up that demand. It was at that point that the Rubicon was crossed.
Thus in Bihar, the Government was given a chance to settle the issues across the table. None of the demands of the students was unreasonable or non-negotiable. But the Bihar government preferred the method of struggle, i.e. unparalleled repression. It was the same in Uttar Pradesh. In either case, the Government rejected the path of negotiation, of trying to settle the issues across the table, and chose the path of strife. Had it been otherwise, there would have been no movement at all.
I have pondered over this riddle: Why did not those govern-ments act wisely? The conclusion I have arrived at is that the main hurdle has been corruption. Some-how the governments have been unable to deal with corruption in their ranks, particularly at the top level – the ministerial level itself. The corruption has been the central point of the movement, particularly corruption in the government and the administration.
Be that as it may, except for Bihar there was no movement of its kind in any other state of India. In Uttar Pradesh, though satyagraha had started in April, it was far from becoming a people’s movement. In some other states though, struggle committees had been formed, there seemed to be no possibility of a mass movement anywhere. And as the general election to the Lok Sabha was drawing near, the attention of the opposition parties was turned more towards the coming electoral struggle than to any struggle involving civil disobedience.
Thus, the plan of which you speak, the plan to paralyse the Government, is a figment of your imagination thought up to justify your totalitarian measures.
But suppose I grant you for a minute, for argument’s sake, that there was such a plan, do you honestly believe that your erstwhile colleague, the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, and Chandrashekhar, a member of the Congress Working Committee, were also a party to it? Then why have they also been arrested and many others like them?
No, dear Prime Minister, there was no plan to paralyse the Government. If there was a plan, it was a simple, innocent and short-time plan to continue until the Supreme Court decided your appeal. It was this plan that was announced at the Ramlila grounds by Nanaji Deshmukh on June 25 and which was the subject matter of my speech that evening. The programme was for a selected number of persons to offer satyagraha before or near your residence in support of the demand that you should step down until the Supreme Court’s judgement on your appeal. The programme was to continue for seven days in Delhi, after which it was to be taken up in the states. And, as I have said above, it was to last only until the judgement of the Supreme Court. I do not see what is subversive or dangerous about it. In a democracy the citizen has an inalienable right to civil disobedience when he finds that other channels of redress or reform have dried up. It goes without saying that the satyagrahi willingly invites and accepts his lawful punishment. This is the dimension added to democracy by Gandhi. What an irony that it should be obliterated in Gandhi’s own India!
It should be noted – and it is a very important point – that even this programme of a satyagraha would not have occurred to the Opposition had you remained content with quietly clinging on to your office. But you did not do it. Through your henchmen you had rallies and demonstrations organized in front of your residence (begging you not to resign). You addressed these rallies and, justifying your stand, advanced spurious arguments and heaped calumny on the head of the Opposition. An effigy of the High Court Judge was burnt before your residence. Posters appeared in the city suggesting some kind of link between the Judge and the CIA. When such despicable happenings were taking place every day, the Opposition had no alternative but to counteract the mischief. And how did it decided to do it? Not by rowdyism but by orderly satyagraha, self-sacrifice.
It was this ‘plan’ and not any imaginary plan to paralyse the Government that has aroused your ire and cost the people their liberties and dealt a deathblow to their democracy.
And why was the freedom of the press being suppressed? Not because the Indian press was irresponsible, dishonest or anti-Government. In fact, nowhere under conditions of freedom is the press more responsible, reasonable and fair than it has been in India. The truth is that your anger against it was aroused because on the question of your resignation, after the High Court’s judgement, some of the papers took a line that was highly unpalatable to you. And when on the morrow of the Supreme Court judgement all the metropolitan papers, including the wavering The Times of India came out with well-reasoned and forceful editorials advising you to quit, freedom of the press became too much for you to stomach. That cooked the goose of the Indian press, and you struck your deadly blow. It staggers one’s imagination to think that so valuable a freedom as the freedom of the press, the very life-breath of democracy, can be snuffed out because of the personal pique of a Prime Minister.
You have accused the Opposition of trying to lower the prestige and position of the country’s Prime Minister. But in reality, the boot is on the other leg. No one has done more to lower the position and prestige of that great office than yourself. Can you ever think of the Prime Minister of a democratic country who cannot even vote in his Parliament because he has been found guilty of corrupt electoral practices? The Supreme Court may reverse the High Court’s judgement – most probably it will be in this atmosphere of terror – but as long as that is not done your guilt and your deprivation of your right to vote remain)1 .
As for the “one person” who is supposed to have tried to sow dissatisfaction in the armed and police forces, he denies the charge. All that he has done is to make the men and officers of the forces conscious of their duties and responsibilities. Whatever he has said in that connection is within the law, the Constitution, the Army Act, and the Police Act.
So much for your major points, the plea to paralyse the Government and the attempt to sow dissatisfaction in the armed and police forces. Now a few of your minor points and obiter dicta.
You are reported to have said that democracy is not more important than the nation. Are you not presuming too much, Madam Prime Minister? You are not the only one who cares for the nation. Among those whom you have detained or imprisoned there are many who have done as much for the nation as you. And everyone of them is as good a patriot as yourself. So, please do not apply salt to our wounds by lecturing to us about the nation.
Moreover, it is a false choice that you have formulated. There is no choice between democracy and the nation. It was for the good of the nation that the people of India declared in the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, that “we, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute into a Sovereign Democratic Republic … give to ourselves this Constitution.” This democratic Constitution cannot be changed into a totalitarian one by a mere ordinance or a law of Parliament. That can be done only by the people of India themselves in their new Constituent Assembly, especially elected for that special purpose. If Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity have not been rendered to “all its citizens” even after a quarter of century of signing of that Constitution, the fault is not that of the Constitution or of democracy but of the Congress party that has been in power in Delhi all these years. It is precisely because of that failure that there is so much unrest among the people and the youth. Repression is no remedy for that. On the other hand, it only compounds the failure.
I no doubt see that the papers are full these days of reports of new policies, new drives, show of new enthusiasm. Apparently you are trying to make up for lost time, that is to say, you are making a show of doing here and now what you failed to do in nine years. But your 20 points2 will go the same way as your 10 points did and the “stray thoughts”. But I assure you this time the people will not be fooled. And I assure you of another thing too: a party of self-seekers and spineless opportunists and “jee-huzurs” such as the Congress, alas, has become, can never do anything worthwhile. (Not all Congressmen are such. There are quite a few exceptions, such as those who have been deprived of their Party membership and some of them their freedom. There will be a lot of propaganda and much ado on paper but on the ground level the situation will not change. The condition of the poor – and they are in great majority over the greater part of the country – has been worsening over the past years. It would be enough if the downward trend were arrested. But for that your whole approach to politics and economics will have to change.
I have written the above in utter frankness without mincing words. I have done so not out of anger or so as to get even with you in words. No, that would be a show of impotence. Nor does it show any lack of appreciation for the care that is being taken of my health. I have done it only to place the naked truth before you, which you have been trying to cover up and distort.
Having performed this unpleasant duty, may I conclude with a few parting words of advice? You know I am an old man. My life’s work is done. After Prabha’s3 going I have nothing and no one to live for. My brother and my nephew have their family and my younger sister – the elder died years ago – has her sons and daughters. I have given all my life, after finishing education, to the country and asked for nothing in return. So, I shall be content to die a prisoner under your regime.
Would you listen to the advice of such a man? Please, do not destroy the foundations that the Father of the Nation, including your noble father, had laid down. There is nothing but strife and suffering along the path that you have taken. You inherited a great tradition, noble values and a working democracy. Do not leave behind a miserable wreck of all that. It would take a long time to put all that together again. For it would be put together again, I have no doubt. People who fought British imperialism and humbled it cannot accept indefinitely the indignity and shame of totalitarianism. The spirit of man can never be vanquished, no matter how deeply suppressed. In establishing your personal dictatorship, you have buried it deep. But it will rise from the grave. Even in Russia, it is slowly coming up.
You have talked of social democracy. What a beautiful image those words call to the mind. But you have seen in east-ern and central Europe how ugly is the reality: Naked dictatorship and in the ultimate analysis Russian overlordship. Please, please do not push India towards that terrible fate.
And may I ask to what purpose all these draconian measures? In order to be able to carry out the 20 points? But who was preventing you from carrying out the 10 points? All the discontent, the protest, the satyagraha were due precisely to the fact that you were not doing anything to implement your programme, inadequate as it was, to lighten the misery and burden under which the people and youth were groaning. This is what Chandrashekhar, Mohan Dharia, Krishna Kant and their friends have been saying for which they have been punished.
You have talked of “drift” in the country. But was that due to opposition or to me? The drift was because of your lack of decision, direction and drive. You seem to act swiftly and dramatically only when your personal position is threatened. Once that is assured, the drift begins. Dear Indiraji, please do not identify yourself with the nation. You are not immortal, India is.
You have accused the Opposition and me of every kind of villainy. But let me assure you that if you do the right things – for instance, your 20 points, tackling corruption at ministerial levels, electoral reforms, etc., take the Opposition into confidence, heed its advice – you will receive the willing cooperation of everyone of us. For that you need not destroy democracy. The ball is in your court. It is for you to decide.
With these parting words, let me bid you farewell. May God be with you.
- Jayaprakash
Courtesy : Far Eastern Economic Review, February 20, 1976.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Fai Episode: Intellectuals, Govt to be Blamed
Once again, Pakistan’s nefarious covert and overt attempts to defame, denigrate and destabilize India has come to the fore with the recent arrest of Ghulam Nabi Fai, by U.S authorities for collaborating with the notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), by funneling money to influence American policy on Kashmir.
Fai was arrested by the U.S Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) from his home in Fairfax, Virginia. According to the FBI affidavit, Fai established and ran the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) from Washington at the behest of ISI to lobby on Kashmir at Capitol Hill.
For almost 20 years, the KAC has been organizing several anti India activities including printing and circulating propaganda pamphlets and other literature on alleged human rights violation in Jammu and Kashmir, holding national and international seminars to which participants form several countries including India were invited, lobbying against the Indian government with the American government and lawmakers and on the sidelines of international human rights conferences as also trying to influence U.S politicians by contributing to their election funds.
The practice of intelligence agencies running and funding non governmental organizations particularly in foreign countries to propagate and lobby for their particular view point has been an existence since World War days and played a key role in the U.S campaign against the Communist Soviet Union. The U.S Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is itself known to have floated and funded several such agencies across the globe.
The revelation about Fai being an ISI agent also does not come as a surprise to most Indians as Pakistan has been engaged not only in such notorious anti-India propaganda but also proxy war against the country through terrorists, trained, armed and funded on its very soil.
However, what has come as a shock is the proximity Fai seems to have enjoyed with several leading Indian journalists and intellectuals. They include Justice Rajinder Sachar , author of the Sachar Committee report on the state of Indian Muslims, Dilip Padgaonkar, one of the three Interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir appointed by the UPA government, Kuldip Nayar, eminent journalist and former Indian High Commissioner to Britain, Ved Bhasin, Editor of Kashmir Times, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Executive Editor, Kashmir Times and peace activist, Harinder Baweja, Editor (Investigations) with Headlines Today, Gautam Navlakha, democratic rights activist and Editorial Consultant, Economic and Political Weekly, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, human rights activist, Praful Bidwai, noted columnist, Rita Manchanda, Programme Executive of South Asia Forum for Human Rights, and Professor G. R. Malik, Head of Dept, English at the Central University, Kashmir.
These journalist and intellectuals not only participated, some of them actively, in the seminars organized by Fai, but were part of even a jury for All India Level Essay competitions on Kashmir organized by the Kashmiri Action Council.
What is more, Fai was successful in including some of them in the drafting committee of his annual event called, ‘International Kashmir Peace Conference’.
A resolution titled “Washington Declaration” adopted at the 2010 conference and drafted allegedly among others by Nayar said the participants “unanimously” expressed grave concern over the “deteriorating” human rights situation in Kashmir and urged the Indian government to withdraw its armed forces from civilian populated areas. It also sought an impartial commission to investigate “killings in a transparent manner.”
Among others in the drafting committee as members for the 2009 resolutions were Bhasin and Navlakha.
According to an overview of the KAC conference sent to the media after the 2009 event by Fai, Bhasin was quoted as advocating for Kashmir as an independent state in South Asia.
"The only solution is an independent state in South Asia. The status quo is not a solution; the division of the state is not a solution," Bhasin was quoted as saying.
Speaking in the session, 'When Peaceful Protests Fail, What Next?', Navlakha had allegedly warned that if the aspirations of Kashmiris continued to be ignored, the armed struggle could start again "which will have repercussions for all of South Asia".
If the proximity of these intellectuals and thought leaders with the blatantly anti -Indian Fai came as a surprise to many, what was shocking was the indifference with which they dismissed and defended this serious matter. “Google was not available then” was the most simplistic response that Padgaonkar gave even as he insisted that he did not have the faintest of idea about Fai’s affiliation with ISI.
Reacting to Padgaonkar’s statement, his fellow Interlocutor on Jammu and Kashmir M M Ansari asked “How can you join a conference without knowing the credibility of the individuals and the institutions?.”
While refusing to comment on his advocacy of an independent Kashmir state, Bhasin merely stated that he was not aware that ISI had any links with the conferences organized by Fai.
There cannot be a more specious argument about ignorance of basic facts by such eminent intellectuals who have a wide network of contacts world wide.
In fact, way back in 1995 itself, separatist leader Hasim Qureshi had exposed Fai’s links with Pakistan’s ISI in his book ‘Kashmir: The Unveiling of Truth’. Qureshi, who hogged the headlines for hijacking an Indian Airlines plane in 1971 to Lahore, wrote that Fai and Ayub Thakur (now dead) were at the forefront of fund raising campaigns for Jamat-E-Islami and its militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen in US and UK respectively.
These intellectuals could also have gathered information about Fai from the Indian mission in Washington as they were well aware of KAC’s nefarious activities. In fact, in its invitations sent to media before its 2010 annual conference, the KAC had listed the Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar among its invitees, but Indian Envoys never participated in these conferences as they not only knew who KAC was working for but also such conferences were always Pakistan centric and heavy with anti India agenda.
Besides, many Indian journalists and intellectuals did not fall into the ISI trap. Siddharth Vardarajan of The Hindu, who was listed as a panel speaker for the 2010 annual conference did not attend stating he was pre occupied with another assignment. “I made some queries and decided not to attend”- he told media persons when asked why he skipped the event.
The question is if Vardarajan could make inquiries, why others could not and did not. Padgaonkar is not just another journalist but he is part of the UPA government’s peace process in Kashmir. Kashmiri Pandit organizations and people from Jammu have demanded his resignation and asking whether it was possible to expect objectivity from ‘partisan’ intellectuals like him.
Justice Sachar dealt with a major issue like the status of Muslims but with the revelation of his association with people like Fai, right wing hardliners questioning the credibility of the report cannot be ruled out.
While it would be unfair to attribute anti national motives to the participants, it is also hard to believe that all of these learned intellectuals were taken for a ride or were lured by free business class tickets and hospitality.
If it was the duty of these intellectuals to have looked before they leapt and made necessary inquiries before attending such conferences, the Indian Government and the Indian Embassy in Washington in particular on its part clearly failed in its duty to inform and educate them about the background and motive of the organizer. Either way, the outcome has not made us a prouder nation.
Fai was arrested by the U.S Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) from his home in Fairfax, Virginia. According to the FBI affidavit, Fai established and ran the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) from Washington at the behest of ISI to lobby on Kashmir at Capitol Hill.
For almost 20 years, the KAC has been organizing several anti India activities including printing and circulating propaganda pamphlets and other literature on alleged human rights violation in Jammu and Kashmir, holding national and international seminars to which participants form several countries including India were invited, lobbying against the Indian government with the American government and lawmakers and on the sidelines of international human rights conferences as also trying to influence U.S politicians by contributing to their election funds.
The practice of intelligence agencies running and funding non governmental organizations particularly in foreign countries to propagate and lobby for their particular view point has been an existence since World War days and played a key role in the U.S campaign against the Communist Soviet Union. The U.S Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is itself known to have floated and funded several such agencies across the globe.
The revelation about Fai being an ISI agent also does not come as a surprise to most Indians as Pakistan has been engaged not only in such notorious anti-India propaganda but also proxy war against the country through terrorists, trained, armed and funded on its very soil.
However, what has come as a shock is the proximity Fai seems to have enjoyed with several leading Indian journalists and intellectuals. They include Justice Rajinder Sachar , author of the Sachar Committee report on the state of Indian Muslims, Dilip Padgaonkar, one of the three Interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir appointed by the UPA government, Kuldip Nayar, eminent journalist and former Indian High Commissioner to Britain, Ved Bhasin, Editor of Kashmir Times, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Executive Editor, Kashmir Times and peace activist, Harinder Baweja, Editor (Investigations) with Headlines Today, Gautam Navlakha, democratic rights activist and Editorial Consultant, Economic and Political Weekly, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, human rights activist, Praful Bidwai, noted columnist, Rita Manchanda, Programme Executive of South Asia Forum for Human Rights, and Professor G. R. Malik, Head of Dept, English at the Central University, Kashmir.
These journalist and intellectuals not only participated, some of them actively, in the seminars organized by Fai, but were part of even a jury for All India Level Essay competitions on Kashmir organized by the Kashmiri Action Council.
What is more, Fai was successful in including some of them in the drafting committee of his annual event called, ‘International Kashmir Peace Conference’.
A resolution titled “Washington Declaration” adopted at the 2010 conference and drafted allegedly among others by Nayar said the participants “unanimously” expressed grave concern over the “deteriorating” human rights situation in Kashmir and urged the Indian government to withdraw its armed forces from civilian populated areas. It also sought an impartial commission to investigate “killings in a transparent manner.”
Among others in the drafting committee as members for the 2009 resolutions were Bhasin and Navlakha.
According to an overview of the KAC conference sent to the media after the 2009 event by Fai, Bhasin was quoted as advocating for Kashmir as an independent state in South Asia.
"The only solution is an independent state in South Asia. The status quo is not a solution; the division of the state is not a solution," Bhasin was quoted as saying.
Speaking in the session, 'When Peaceful Protests Fail, What Next?', Navlakha had allegedly warned that if the aspirations of Kashmiris continued to be ignored, the armed struggle could start again "which will have repercussions for all of South Asia".
If the proximity of these intellectuals and thought leaders with the blatantly anti -Indian Fai came as a surprise to many, what was shocking was the indifference with which they dismissed and defended this serious matter. “Google was not available then” was the most simplistic response that Padgaonkar gave even as he insisted that he did not have the faintest of idea about Fai’s affiliation with ISI.
Reacting to Padgaonkar’s statement, his fellow Interlocutor on Jammu and Kashmir M M Ansari asked “How can you join a conference without knowing the credibility of the individuals and the institutions?.”
While refusing to comment on his advocacy of an independent Kashmir state, Bhasin merely stated that he was not aware that ISI had any links with the conferences organized by Fai.
There cannot be a more specious argument about ignorance of basic facts by such eminent intellectuals who have a wide network of contacts world wide.
In fact, way back in 1995 itself, separatist leader Hasim Qureshi had exposed Fai’s links with Pakistan’s ISI in his book ‘Kashmir: The Unveiling of Truth’. Qureshi, who hogged the headlines for hijacking an Indian Airlines plane in 1971 to Lahore, wrote that Fai and Ayub Thakur (now dead) were at the forefront of fund raising campaigns for Jamat-E-Islami and its militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen in US and UK respectively.
These intellectuals could also have gathered information about Fai from the Indian mission in Washington as they were well aware of KAC’s nefarious activities. In fact, in its invitations sent to media before its 2010 annual conference, the KAC had listed the Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar among its invitees, but Indian Envoys never participated in these conferences as they not only knew who KAC was working for but also such conferences were always Pakistan centric and heavy with anti India agenda.
Besides, many Indian journalists and intellectuals did not fall into the ISI trap. Siddharth Vardarajan of The Hindu, who was listed as a panel speaker for the 2010 annual conference did not attend stating he was pre occupied with another assignment. “I made some queries and decided not to attend”- he told media persons when asked why he skipped the event.
The question is if Vardarajan could make inquiries, why others could not and did not. Padgaonkar is not just another journalist but he is part of the UPA government’s peace process in Kashmir. Kashmiri Pandit organizations and people from Jammu have demanded his resignation and asking whether it was possible to expect objectivity from ‘partisan’ intellectuals like him.
Justice Sachar dealt with a major issue like the status of Muslims but with the revelation of his association with people like Fai, right wing hardliners questioning the credibility of the report cannot be ruled out.
While it would be unfair to attribute anti national motives to the participants, it is also hard to believe that all of these learned intellectuals were taken for a ride or were lured by free business class tickets and hospitality.
If it was the duty of these intellectuals to have looked before they leapt and made necessary inquiries before attending such conferences, the Indian Government and the Indian Embassy in Washington in particular on its part clearly failed in its duty to inform and educate them about the background and motive of the organizer. Either way, the outcome has not made us a prouder nation.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Life Must Go ON
As Mumbaikars seek to overcome yet another tragedy and return to their normal lives and Norwegians mourn the death of their loved ones, one is reminded of the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, which emphasizes on the non-permanence of either happiness or distress and the importance of discharging one’s responsibility without being influenced by the vicissitudes in life.
In text 14 of Chapter 2, Lord Krishna tells Pandava warrior Arjuna that the non permanent appearance of happiness and distress and their disappearance in due course are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.
The divine cowherd also seeks to console and provide solace to a grieving humanity asserting that the soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, not withered by wind.
“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned not dried. He is everlasting, all pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same”. (Text 24, Chapter 2)
Thus, one who thinks that the living entity is the slayer or that he is slain, does not understand. According to the Gita, one who is in knowledge knows that the self neither slays not is slain.
Krishna further goes on to exhort in his sermon on the battlefield that for the one who has taken his or her birth, death is certain and for one who is dead, birth is certain and therefore “in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament”.
To those who are emotionally affected by such situations in life, the song celestial counsels, “from whatever and wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self’. (Text 26, Chapter 6).
The Gita also offers advice to the political leadership in such a scenario. In Text 20 of Chapter 3, it says that even Kings like Janaka and others attained the perfectional stage by performance of prescribed duties. “Therefore, just for the same of educating the people in general, you should perform your work…whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow in his footsteps. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues”.
In text 14 of Chapter 2, Lord Krishna tells Pandava warrior Arjuna that the non permanent appearance of happiness and distress and their disappearance in due course are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.
The divine cowherd also seeks to console and provide solace to a grieving humanity asserting that the soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can it be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, not withered by wind.
“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned not dried. He is everlasting, all pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same”. (Text 24, Chapter 2)
Thus, one who thinks that the living entity is the slayer or that he is slain, does not understand. According to the Gita, one who is in knowledge knows that the self neither slays not is slain.
Krishna further goes on to exhort in his sermon on the battlefield that for the one who has taken his or her birth, death is certain and for one who is dead, birth is certain and therefore “in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament”.
To those who are emotionally affected by such situations in life, the song celestial counsels, “from whatever and wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self’. (Text 26, Chapter 6).
The Gita also offers advice to the political leadership in such a scenario. In Text 20 of Chapter 3, it says that even Kings like Janaka and others attained the perfectional stage by performance of prescribed duties. “Therefore, just for the same of educating the people in general, you should perform your work…whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow in his footsteps. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues”.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Remembering a Forgotten Guru
“The Child of music and of love” was the definition Sir John Davies gave to the great art of dancing.
Although the average educated person in the country is acquainted with the names of only a handful of artistes, India has produced countless number of talented and dedicated artistes, who worked selflessly and whole-heartedly for the emancipation of Indian culture and its varied art forms which had gathered a lot of dust during the centuries of alien rule.
Guru Thottam Shankaran Namboodiri, one of the greatest Kathakali performers the country has produced, was one such artiste.
For the uninitiated, Kathakali, one of the oldest theatre forms in the world, is a group presentation in which dancers take various roles in performances traditionally based on themes from Hindu mythology, especially Ramayana and Mahabharata.
The Guru was born in Thakazhi, a mile from the famous Krishnaswamy temple at Ambalapuzha in Alapuzha district of Kerala, in a family of landlords and the most orthodox of Brahmins.
After his ‘Upanayanam’ (sacred thread ceremony) and the completion of his studies of Vedic texts and other religious scriptures, young Shankaran evinced keen interest in dance and drama, especially Kathakali, which was viewed with disapproval by his father, a learned Pandit. Shankaran, who became the first Brahmin to take to Kathakali, nevertheless started studying Kathakali surreptitiously. And two years later, much to the amazement and ire of his father, he appeared in a Kathakali rehearsal witnessed among others by the family patriarch.
Himself a connoisseur of art, the father could not resist admiring his son’s talent notwithstanding his initial opposition and in due course allowed him to study ‘Natya’ properly. Encouraged by his father’s support, Sankaran studied ‘Abhinaya’ for four years under a well-known Chakkiyar and thereafter traveled across the state learning from different teachers whatever special knowledge they had. For a good 15 years, Sankaran toured all over Malabar with the best of Kathakali troupes and won recognition from Kings, Princes, local chieftains and temples in the form of ‘Vira Shrinkhalas’, medals and gifts. Simultaneously, the Guru also studied other forms of dances and Sanskrit drama, which over the years enabled him to become the best exponent of his art.
The Guru was perhaps the sole perfect master of the technique of ‘Ekalochana’. ‘Ekalochana’ is a scene from the ‘Attakatha’ (the verse text for a Kathakali piece) named ‘Duryodhana Vadham’ (The slaying of Mahabharata villain Duryodhana), in which Duryodhana while sitting in the garden with his wife Bhanumati is watched by a ‘Koki couple’ (birds). (It is said that these birds cannot meet after moon rise as a result of a sage’s curse).
These ‘Chakravaka Pakshis’ as they are called, seeing Bhanumati’s face and mistaking it to be the moon are frightened and the female bird with one eye looks angrily at Bhanumati’s face and with the other looks sorrowfully at her mate. Here, the Guru with one side of his face expressed anger (Raudra Bhava) and with the other sorrow (Karuna Bhava) simultaneously.
But it was his encounter with the father of modern Indian dance Uday Shankar which changed the lives of both and heralded the entry of regional dance forms into the national mainstream.Overwhelmed by the Guru’s performance at the palace of the Travancore King in 1934, Uday Shankar fell at his feet and requested him to be his Guru. They took a great liking for each other, which deepened and intensified further with time. The Guru accompanied Shankar to Kolkata in the same year to teach him and his troupe. Committed to the propagation of Kathakali, the Guru alongwith other actors and musicians toured across Northern India including Lahore, Delhi, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Bombay and Patna in 1936.
With the inception of the Uday Shankar India Culture Centre at Almora in 1938, the Guru moved to the Himalayan resort and consecrated the image of Lord Nataraja, the muse for traditional Indian artists. He taught Kathakali and expressions to Group members and students for eight months and spent the winter with his family in Kerala.
The Centre also hosted other great masters like Guru Kandappa Pillai, Guru Amubi Singh, Vishnudas Shirali and Ustad Allauddin Khan and the its students included Narendra Sharma, Guru Dutt, Sundari Sridharani, Kapila Vatsyayan and Shanti Bardhan.
Uday Shankar, alongwith his brother and Sitar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar, also spent days together at the Guru’s native village and learnt the nuances of Kathakali.
The Guru’s love and affection for his pupil Uday Shankar was legendary. In fact, when the orthodox Brahmins in Malabar tried to dissuade him from traveling so far, the Guru is reported to have said, “if Shankar calls me even in the middle of the sea, I will unhesitatingly go to him”. He kept this promise till the last dying in the arms of his famous disciple.
A well-known art critic had described the 63-year old Guru’s final exit from the world stage on August 7, 1943 thus:
“The death that overtook the great master was as sudden as glorious. Five minutes before he had acted the scene of ‘Dussasana Vadham’, which was performed with the vigour and strength of youth, when the actor reached the very acme of perfection in the portrayal of the ‘Raudra’ aspect. The work done, the Guru went and sat in the auditorium and watched an item by the girl students. Just before ‘Indra’ was to begin, he relaxed in his seat and lolled over.
“He was taken in the fresh air when Dada (Uday Shankar) dressed up as Indra, ready to begin his dance, rushed out and caught hold of his Guru in his arms. Guru breathed his last, with a quiet, contented smile on his lips, body still moist with perspiration from his dance, surrounded by his pupils. It was unbelievable, monstrous. Yet, it was glorious, magnificent. He loved to dance and teach. He danced as he lived and he died dancing, at his best, every inch an artiste, dignified, straight and active even at 63…”
A shocked Uday Shankar, who regarded the Guru as the symbol of the Centre, said, “I cannot believe it, he looks so peaceful and happy. He has not only been a Guru and a father to me but much more. I feel bewildered but I know he is not gone. Fathers and Gurus never die, they are immortal. I have not been able in this life to get even a fraction of his art but I pray that when I die, I might at least follow him and depart suddenly, working and enjoying my work till the very last minute.”
Uday Shankar later dedicated ‘Kalpana’, one of the first and best ever films on Indian art to the memory of his late Guru. The Almora Centre too was closed soon thereafter. A fresh attempt is being made to revive the Centre at a new location at Almora for which the foundation stone was laid by the then President A P J Abdul Kalam.
As Uday Shankar began innovating and experimenting with the different art forms and evolving the modern Indian ballet, the task of preserving Kathakali in its purest form was left to the Guru’s son, Thottam Gopalakrishnan Nambudiripad. Though highly talented like his father, Gopalakrishnan chose to propagate Kathakali as a teacher, first joining Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s arts faculty on the invitation of Dr K M Munshi and later shifting to the West Bengal Academy of Dance, Drama and Music (which later became Rabindra Bharati University) at the special invitation of the then Chief Minister Dr B C Roy.
Prof Nambudiripad too was honoured with several awards including the ‘Amritam-tu-Vidya-Natyam’ by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the late actor Prithviraj Kapoor was the only other recipient) and a Senior Fellowship by the Government of India for his contribution to the promotion of ‘Natyakala’.
Like the late Guru, Prof Nambudiripad also perfected the art of ‘Ekalochana’ wherein with one side of his faced expressed anger (Raudra Bhava) and with the other sorrow (Karuna Bhava) simultaneously. He bid adieu both to the ‘Natyavedi’ and the world on January 02, 1985.
The Delhi-based Subhadra Nambudiri Foundation is also planning documentaries and publications in the coming days to propagate both Kathakali and the contributions made by the Late Guru.
***********************************************************************
Although the average educated person in the country is acquainted with the names of only a handful of artistes, India has produced countless number of talented and dedicated artistes, who worked selflessly and whole-heartedly for the emancipation of Indian culture and its varied art forms which had gathered a lot of dust during the centuries of alien rule.
Guru Thottam Shankaran Namboodiri, one of the greatest Kathakali performers the country has produced, was one such artiste.
For the uninitiated, Kathakali, one of the oldest theatre forms in the world, is a group presentation in which dancers take various roles in performances traditionally based on themes from Hindu mythology, especially Ramayana and Mahabharata.
The Guru was born in Thakazhi, a mile from the famous Krishnaswamy temple at Ambalapuzha in Alapuzha district of Kerala, in a family of landlords and the most orthodox of Brahmins.
After his ‘Upanayanam’ (sacred thread ceremony) and the completion of his studies of Vedic texts and other religious scriptures, young Shankaran evinced keen interest in dance and drama, especially Kathakali, which was viewed with disapproval by his father, a learned Pandit. Shankaran, who became the first Brahmin to take to Kathakali, nevertheless started studying Kathakali surreptitiously. And two years later, much to the amazement and ire of his father, he appeared in a Kathakali rehearsal witnessed among others by the family patriarch.
Himself a connoisseur of art, the father could not resist admiring his son’s talent notwithstanding his initial opposition and in due course allowed him to study ‘Natya’ properly. Encouraged by his father’s support, Sankaran studied ‘Abhinaya’ for four years under a well-known Chakkiyar and thereafter traveled across the state learning from different teachers whatever special knowledge they had. For a good 15 years, Sankaran toured all over Malabar with the best of Kathakali troupes and won recognition from Kings, Princes, local chieftains and temples in the form of ‘Vira Shrinkhalas’, medals and gifts. Simultaneously, the Guru also studied other forms of dances and Sanskrit drama, which over the years enabled him to become the best exponent of his art.
The Guru was perhaps the sole perfect master of the technique of ‘Ekalochana’. ‘Ekalochana’ is a scene from the ‘Attakatha’ (the verse text for a Kathakali piece) named ‘Duryodhana Vadham’ (The slaying of Mahabharata villain Duryodhana), in which Duryodhana while sitting in the garden with his wife Bhanumati is watched by a ‘Koki couple’ (birds). (It is said that these birds cannot meet after moon rise as a result of a sage’s curse).
These ‘Chakravaka Pakshis’ as they are called, seeing Bhanumati’s face and mistaking it to be the moon are frightened and the female bird with one eye looks angrily at Bhanumati’s face and with the other looks sorrowfully at her mate. Here, the Guru with one side of his face expressed anger (Raudra Bhava) and with the other sorrow (Karuna Bhava) simultaneously.
But it was his encounter with the father of modern Indian dance Uday Shankar which changed the lives of both and heralded the entry of regional dance forms into the national mainstream.Overwhelmed by the Guru’s performance at the palace of the Travancore King in 1934, Uday Shankar fell at his feet and requested him to be his Guru. They took a great liking for each other, which deepened and intensified further with time. The Guru accompanied Shankar to Kolkata in the same year to teach him and his troupe. Committed to the propagation of Kathakali, the Guru alongwith other actors and musicians toured across Northern India including Lahore, Delhi, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Bombay and Patna in 1936.
With the inception of the Uday Shankar India Culture Centre at Almora in 1938, the Guru moved to the Himalayan resort and consecrated the image of Lord Nataraja, the muse for traditional Indian artists. He taught Kathakali and expressions to Group members and students for eight months and spent the winter with his family in Kerala.
The Centre also hosted other great masters like Guru Kandappa Pillai, Guru Amubi Singh, Vishnudas Shirali and Ustad Allauddin Khan and the its students included Narendra Sharma, Guru Dutt, Sundari Sridharani, Kapila Vatsyayan and Shanti Bardhan.
Uday Shankar, alongwith his brother and Sitar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar, also spent days together at the Guru’s native village and learnt the nuances of Kathakali.
The Guru’s love and affection for his pupil Uday Shankar was legendary. In fact, when the orthodox Brahmins in Malabar tried to dissuade him from traveling so far, the Guru is reported to have said, “if Shankar calls me even in the middle of the sea, I will unhesitatingly go to him”. He kept this promise till the last dying in the arms of his famous disciple.
A well-known art critic had described the 63-year old Guru’s final exit from the world stage on August 7, 1943 thus:
“The death that overtook the great master was as sudden as glorious. Five minutes before he had acted the scene of ‘Dussasana Vadham’, which was performed with the vigour and strength of youth, when the actor reached the very acme of perfection in the portrayal of the ‘Raudra’ aspect. The work done, the Guru went and sat in the auditorium and watched an item by the girl students. Just before ‘Indra’ was to begin, he relaxed in his seat and lolled over.
“He was taken in the fresh air when Dada (Uday Shankar) dressed up as Indra, ready to begin his dance, rushed out and caught hold of his Guru in his arms. Guru breathed his last, with a quiet, contented smile on his lips, body still moist with perspiration from his dance, surrounded by his pupils. It was unbelievable, monstrous. Yet, it was glorious, magnificent. He loved to dance and teach. He danced as he lived and he died dancing, at his best, every inch an artiste, dignified, straight and active even at 63…”
A shocked Uday Shankar, who regarded the Guru as the symbol of the Centre, said, “I cannot believe it, he looks so peaceful and happy. He has not only been a Guru and a father to me but much more. I feel bewildered but I know he is not gone. Fathers and Gurus never die, they are immortal. I have not been able in this life to get even a fraction of his art but I pray that when I die, I might at least follow him and depart suddenly, working and enjoying my work till the very last minute.”
Uday Shankar later dedicated ‘Kalpana’, one of the first and best ever films on Indian art to the memory of his late Guru. The Almora Centre too was closed soon thereafter. A fresh attempt is being made to revive the Centre at a new location at Almora for which the foundation stone was laid by the then President A P J Abdul Kalam.
As Uday Shankar began innovating and experimenting with the different art forms and evolving the modern Indian ballet, the task of preserving Kathakali in its purest form was left to the Guru’s son, Thottam Gopalakrishnan Nambudiripad. Though highly talented like his father, Gopalakrishnan chose to propagate Kathakali as a teacher, first joining Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s arts faculty on the invitation of Dr K M Munshi and later shifting to the West Bengal Academy of Dance, Drama and Music (which later became Rabindra Bharati University) at the special invitation of the then Chief Minister Dr B C Roy.
Prof Nambudiripad too was honoured with several awards including the ‘Amritam-tu-Vidya-Natyam’ by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the late actor Prithviraj Kapoor was the only other recipient) and a Senior Fellowship by the Government of India for his contribution to the promotion of ‘Natyakala’.
Like the late Guru, Prof Nambudiripad also perfected the art of ‘Ekalochana’ wherein with one side of his faced expressed anger (Raudra Bhava) and with the other sorrow (Karuna Bhava) simultaneously. He bid adieu both to the ‘Natyavedi’ and the world on January 02, 1985.
The Delhi-based Subhadra Nambudiri Foundation is also planning documentaries and publications in the coming days to propagate both Kathakali and the contributions made by the Late Guru.
***********************************************************************
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Time for Telangana
Telangana is back in the headlines with a bang once again with MPs and legislators, belonging to the region, from virtually all political parties including the ruling Congress party, tendering their resignation in what seems to be a desperate bid to force the Centre to bring in a law for the creation of a separate state in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. Several Ministers in the state Government too have put in their papers, rejecting the mediation by the party high command.
The en masse resignations were followed by a 48 hour bandh, call for which was given by the Telangana Joint Action Committee to put pressure on the Centre to concede statehood. Offices, educational institutions, shops and business establishments remained shut and several bus and train services were cancelled.
The emotive Telangana issue has been like a volcano erupting off and on. Unfortunately, all political parties have all along been maintaining inconsistency on the issue and kept changing their stance according to their electoral convenience.
There has also been an attempt to compare the demand for Telangana with similar demands for smaller states across the country and fears have been raised time and again that conceding to the demand would open a pandora’s box and the country could ill afford creation of so many smaller states.
While smaller states may be administratively more convenient and give greater say to the local populace in matters of governance, states such as Jharkhand, where independent MLAs like Madhu Kora became Chief Ministers and amassed wealth vastly disproportionate to their income, showed the inherent fragility of polity in the newly carved out utopias often touted as the ultimate panacea for misgovernance and maladministration in large states.
However, the demand for Telangana, comprising the Telugu speaking portions of the erstwhile princely state of Hyderabad, has been there right since the time of nation’s independence. Except for the Telugu language, there was and is very little in common between the peoples of Telangana and other regions of the state namely Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra.
To begin with, Telangana was never under direct British rule, unlike the Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of Andhra Pradesh, which were part of British India’s Madras Presidency..
It may be recalled that the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) , appointed in 1953, to study the creation of states on linguistic basis, was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana region with Andhra state, despite their common language.
The Commission found that the people of Telangana had several concerns including a less-developed economy than Andhra, but with a larger revenue base, which people of Telangana feared might be diverted for use in Andhra.
In fact, the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was initially skeptical of merging Telangana with Andhra State, fearing a "tint of expansionist imperialism" in it. He compared the merger to a matrimonial alliance having "provisions for divorce" if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well.
Finally, the new state of Andhra Pradesh came into being on November 1, 1956 with assurances to Telangana in terms of power-sharing as well as administrative domicile rules and distribution of expenses of various regions.
However, the honeymoon did not last long with the people of Telangana expressing dissatisfaction over the implementation of the agreements and guarantees., made at the time of the state’s merger.
According to proponents of a separate state, Telangana is not only the largest of the three regions of Andhra Pradesh state, covering 41.47% of its total area and inhabited by 40.54% of the state's population but also contributes about 76% of the state's revenues, excluding the contribution of the central government.
They also cite perceived injustices in the distribution of water, budget allocations, and jobs. They allege that Budget allocations to Telangana are generally less than 1/3 of the total Andhra Pradesh budget. There are also allegations that in most years, funds allocated to Telangana were never spent. According to the proponents of separate statehood, only 20% of the total Government employees, less than 10% of employees in the secretariat, and less than 5% of department heads in the Andhra Pradesh government are from Telangana.
Following widespread protests last year, the Centre had announced a five-member committee on Telangana headed by retired Justice B N Srikrishna to look into the issue.
But instead of coming out with a strong recommendation, the Committee, in its report, offered six options ranging from maintaining the status quo to creation of a separate state with the contentious Hyderabad as a Union Territory as also acceptance of the demand for carving out a separate state with Hyderabad as its capital in toto.
Continuing with its dilly dallying tactics, the Centre sat on the recommendations, resulting in the present crisis.
With United Andhra contributing the highest number of MPs to its kitty, the Centre is hesitant to take a decision on the issue. With the charismatic YSR no more around and his son Jaganmohan Reddy threatening to undermine the party’s base in Seema-Andhra, the party’s options are limited.
The Congress also does not want the TRS, BJP or other regional parties to take credit for creation of a separate state. Having realised that the creation of Telangana was inevitable and a matter of time in the wake of consensus on the issue among all parties and sharp division within its own rank and file, the resignation of Congress Ministers, MLAs and MPs is being seen by political observers as a last ditch stage managed attempt by the Congress party to hijack the movement and retain at least part of its fast dwindling strength south of Vindhyas.
With only 38 MLAs and a wafer thin majority in Kerala, a discredited ally in Tamil Nadu, a near wipe out in Karnataka in the wake of BJP’s continued winning spree in Assembly and civic polls and a fast eroding base in Andhra thanks to Jaganmohan Reddy and a weak state leadership, Congress, it seems, sees a last straw of hope in Telangana.
Thus, the Congress men’s sudden penchant for Telangana has apparently more to do with realpolitik than the sentiments and aspirations of the people of the region. Whatever be the political compulsions, it is high time the people of Telangana get to realise their long cherished dream with the people of Seemandhra being adequately compensated for the loss of Hyderabad and having no bitterness for their brethren.
*******************************************************************************************
The en masse resignations were followed by a 48 hour bandh, call for which was given by the Telangana Joint Action Committee to put pressure on the Centre to concede statehood. Offices, educational institutions, shops and business establishments remained shut and several bus and train services were cancelled.
The emotive Telangana issue has been like a volcano erupting off and on. Unfortunately, all political parties have all along been maintaining inconsistency on the issue and kept changing their stance according to their electoral convenience.
There has also been an attempt to compare the demand for Telangana with similar demands for smaller states across the country and fears have been raised time and again that conceding to the demand would open a pandora’s box and the country could ill afford creation of so many smaller states.
While smaller states may be administratively more convenient and give greater say to the local populace in matters of governance, states such as Jharkhand, where independent MLAs like Madhu Kora became Chief Ministers and amassed wealth vastly disproportionate to their income, showed the inherent fragility of polity in the newly carved out utopias often touted as the ultimate panacea for misgovernance and maladministration in large states.
However, the demand for Telangana, comprising the Telugu speaking portions of the erstwhile princely state of Hyderabad, has been there right since the time of nation’s independence. Except for the Telugu language, there was and is very little in common between the peoples of Telangana and other regions of the state namely Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra.
To begin with, Telangana was never under direct British rule, unlike the Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of Andhra Pradesh, which were part of British India’s Madras Presidency..
It may be recalled that the States Reorganization Commission (SRC) , appointed in 1953, to study the creation of states on linguistic basis, was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana region with Andhra state, despite their common language.
The Commission found that the people of Telangana had several concerns including a less-developed economy than Andhra, but with a larger revenue base, which people of Telangana feared might be diverted for use in Andhra.
In fact, the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was initially skeptical of merging Telangana with Andhra State, fearing a "tint of expansionist imperialism" in it. He compared the merger to a matrimonial alliance having "provisions for divorce" if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well.
Finally, the new state of Andhra Pradesh came into being on November 1, 1956 with assurances to Telangana in terms of power-sharing as well as administrative domicile rules and distribution of expenses of various regions.
However, the honeymoon did not last long with the people of Telangana expressing dissatisfaction over the implementation of the agreements and guarantees., made at the time of the state’s merger.
According to proponents of a separate state, Telangana is not only the largest of the three regions of Andhra Pradesh state, covering 41.47% of its total area and inhabited by 40.54% of the state's population but also contributes about 76% of the state's revenues, excluding the contribution of the central government.
They also cite perceived injustices in the distribution of water, budget allocations, and jobs. They allege that Budget allocations to Telangana are generally less than 1/3 of the total Andhra Pradesh budget. There are also allegations that in most years, funds allocated to Telangana were never spent. According to the proponents of separate statehood, only 20% of the total Government employees, less than 10% of employees in the secretariat, and less than 5% of department heads in the Andhra Pradesh government are from Telangana.
Following widespread protests last year, the Centre had announced a five-member committee on Telangana headed by retired Justice B N Srikrishna to look into the issue.
But instead of coming out with a strong recommendation, the Committee, in its report, offered six options ranging from maintaining the status quo to creation of a separate state with the contentious Hyderabad as a Union Territory as also acceptance of the demand for carving out a separate state with Hyderabad as its capital in toto.
Continuing with its dilly dallying tactics, the Centre sat on the recommendations, resulting in the present crisis.
With United Andhra contributing the highest number of MPs to its kitty, the Centre is hesitant to take a decision on the issue. With the charismatic YSR no more around and his son Jaganmohan Reddy threatening to undermine the party’s base in Seema-Andhra, the party’s options are limited.
The Congress also does not want the TRS, BJP or other regional parties to take credit for creation of a separate state. Having realised that the creation of Telangana was inevitable and a matter of time in the wake of consensus on the issue among all parties and sharp division within its own rank and file, the resignation of Congress Ministers, MLAs and MPs is being seen by political observers as a last ditch stage managed attempt by the Congress party to hijack the movement and retain at least part of its fast dwindling strength south of Vindhyas.
With only 38 MLAs and a wafer thin majority in Kerala, a discredited ally in Tamil Nadu, a near wipe out in Karnataka in the wake of BJP’s continued winning spree in Assembly and civic polls and a fast eroding base in Andhra thanks to Jaganmohan Reddy and a weak state leadership, Congress, it seems, sees a last straw of hope in Telangana.
Thus, the Congress men’s sudden penchant for Telangana has apparently more to do with realpolitik than the sentiments and aspirations of the people of the region. Whatever be the political compulsions, it is high time the people of Telangana get to realise their long cherished dream with the people of Seemandhra being adequately compensated for the loss of Hyderabad and having no bitterness for their brethren.
*******************************************************************************************
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wither Higher Education?
Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, known more for his controversial remarks, occasional bouts of activism and subsequent compromises, once again revived the debate on the state of the country’s higher education when he said there was little possibility of cutting edge scientific research happening in a government set-up and that institutions like the IITs or IIMs were doing well not because of their quality of research or faculty, but because of the quality of the students.
“There is little scope for world class research in the kind of government set-up we have in our scientific institutions.There is hardly any research happening in IITs or IIMs. The faculty in these institutes are not world class. It is the students which are setting the high standards in these institutes,” he said, adding, “It is difficult to attract good talent in a governmental set-up. It is even more difficult to retain such talents if you manage to attract them. This is true of the CSIR laboratories as well.”
Backing Ramesh to the hilt,, Union Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal questioned whether India had any world class institutions.
"In the situation today, is even one of our institutions world class? If it is world class, it must be in the top 100, 150 institutions in the world. That is not evident," Sibal said.
In a prompt response, alumni associations from IIT Delhi and IIT Kharagpur demanded higher salary and perks for IIT teaching faculty to attract new minds in faculty to sustain IIT brand globally.
"Opening of new IITs by government without recruiting new faculty has already burdened the existing faculty in IITs. Almost every citizen in the country is paying education cess to ensure that our gurus (IIT and other teachers) are paid well. Most of the IITs are already facing faculty shortage," said IIT Kharagpur Alumni Association member Y.P.S. Suri.
"The current pay scales of IIT faculty are so unattractive that a fresh graduate from IIT attracts more salary," he said.
Programme director of the IIT Delhi Alumni Association V.K. Saluja demanded that the government make faculty salary levels inspiring enough to attract new minds. According to him, adding new IITs has made this problem more acute and hence the urgency of the matter.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in his report card on the UPA Government’s completion of two years in office did not have much to write home about on the state of higher education and its administration.
"In higher education, we moved forward in strengthening the legislative framework by finalising or introducing in Parliament a number of bills," he said in the report.
He mentioned that three new Indian Institutes of Managements (IIMs) -- at Rohatak, Ranchi and Raipur -- commenced their academic sessions in 2010-11, while the IIM at Tiruchirapalli was operationalised with executive programmes. All the new National Institutes of Technology also started functioning from July 2010, the Prime Minister said.
Obsessed with only an issue at a time (corruption this time around), the media too glossed over this pertinent aspect.
A review of the developments in the past two years reveal the debilitating state of the administrative health of higher education in the country.
The chairman of the Medical Council of India, a senior functionary at the University Grants Commission, the head of the All India Council for Technical Education, , the functioning of the National Council for Teachers Education have all been found steeped in corruption, and irregularities.
Serious allegations have been leveled against the vice-chancellors of major central universities such as the Vishwabharti, Shantineketan, Aligarh Muslim University and North Eastern Hill University, Shillong. The vice-chancellor of Allahabad University, a central university, is alleged to have indulged in recruitment-related irregularities.
Both academia and intelligentsia have brought these issues to the notice of the Government both within and outside Parliament but it remains as nonchalant and indifferent about it as ever.
The UGC and the Central Vigilance Commission reportedly took note of all such irregularities, but these bodies do not have the teeth to do anything.
The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library is a highly rated institution for researchers, directly administered by the Union department of culture. Its director, a reputed historian, has been allegedly found to be indulging in irregularities, but even vociferous protests from a cross section of academicians have fallen on deaf ears.
While Sibal has been making a lot of hue and cry about reforming higher education, the ground realities tell an altogether different story. The bankruptcy of ideas with regard to the higher education and lack of political will and sincerity to bring about the much needed reforms appears all the more ironic considering the fact that the Prime Minister himself was a Professor at one of the leading institutions of higher education.
The appointment and continuation in office of two Vice-Chancellors of two of the most prestigious and sensitive central universities is a case in point.
Prof A N Rai took over as Vice-Chancellor of the North Eastern Hill University in 2010 amid protests from the student community who opposed his appointment over his ‘tainted credentials’ in Mizoram University.
Rai has been accused by the Mizoram Students Union (MSU) of violating a memorandum of understanding (MoU) and misintepreting the eligiblity criteria of the University Grant Commission (UGC) for the appointment of lecturers.
The Mizoram University had signed an MoU with the MSU Sep 15, 2009 that six qualified local candidates would be called for interview for recruitment in various vacant posts. However, Rai appointed non-local lecturers to the post, thus violating the MoU.
But instead of addressing the concerns of the students from the sensitive region, Rai has since been taken as an advisor to the National Advisory Council.
Most disconcerting is the issue concerning the AMU vice-chancellor. Prof P K Abdul Azis, who was appointed by the HRD Ministry in 2007.
The Principal Accountant General (vide AB(C) 09-10/ 249 dated 17-11-2009 to HRD ministry) indicted the VC, the registrar and the finance officer for gross financial embezzlement and other irregularities. It says, 'There is a complete collapse of financial management in the university and the VC and the registrar instead of stopping this frequent financial irregularity themselves became a part of this'.
Subsequently, in April 2009, a ‘Presidential’ inquiry into allegations of financial bungling and general impropriety was initiated against Prof Azis in the wake of several memoranda by some members of the AMU Executive Council and AMU Old Boys Association to the then HRD Minister Arjun Singh and President Pratibha Patil. Arjun Singh has passed away since then but the probe is yet to make any substantial progress.
Unfortunately, the irregularities are being either ignored or downplayed despite the sensitivities attached with these universities.
According to insiders and students, Irregularities have become the hallmark of entrance tests to different professional courses, conducted by the AMU. but no deterrent punishment has ever been given to any of the high functionaries. Irregularities in academic recruitments are a routine phenomenon.
No wonder, In his best seller, Imagining India, UID Project Head Nandan Nilikeni has pointed out that most undemocratic exercise in democratic India is academic recruitments.
The Prof Yashpal Committee, appointed by the Manmohan Singh Government in its final report to the HRD Ministry too criticised the UPA government’s policy of setting up IIMs and IITs indiscriminately, saying that mere numerical expansion, without any understanding of symptoms of poor education, would not help.
Terming the government’s indiscriminate establishment of educational institutes as a “nervous and hurried response”, the panel said, “Creation of a few institutions of excellence and some Central universities, without addressing the issue of deprivation that the state-funded universities are suffering from, would only sharpen the existing inequalities.”
Expressing concern on the mushrooming of engineering and management colleges, that had "largely become business entities dispensing very poor quality education", Yashpal committee lamented the growth of deemed universities and called for a complete ban on further grant of such status. Existing ones, the committee said, should be given three years to develop as a university and fulfil the prescribed accreditation norms.
Raising doubts about the source of funding of private education providers, the committee said mostly it was either "unaccounted wealth from business and political enterprises or from capitation fees".
The committee said a plethora of regulatory bodies like UGC, AICTE, NCTE et al be replaced by a seven-member Commission for Higher Education and Research (CHER) under an Act of Parliament. It has also recommended, obviously to buffer the new regulator against political pressures, that the position of chairperson of the proposed commission be analogous to that of election commissioners.
It also said that the jurisdiction of other regulators -- Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India and others -- be confined to administrative matters, with universities taking up their academic responsibilities.
The report recommended that IITs and IIMs should be encouraged to diversify and expand their scope to work as full-fledged universities.
On the contentious issue of the entry of foreign universities, the committee strikes a cautious note. “Giving an open license to all and sundry, carrying a foreign ownership tag to function like universities in India, most of them not even known in their own countries, would only help them earn profit for their parent institutions located outside or accrue profit to the shareholders. Such institutions must give an Indian degree and be subject to all rules and regulations that would apply to any Indian university”.
Nilekani had cautioned in his book, 'Reforms in higher education can not be bargained away -- they form the bedrock for a vibrant economy, the place from where we can, given the chance, build powerful and sustainable new ideas for our future.'
The million dollar question is “as it deals with existential issues, is anybody in the UPA Government bothered about such fundamental concerns”?
“There is little scope for world class research in the kind of government set-up we have in our scientific institutions.There is hardly any research happening in IITs or IIMs. The faculty in these institutes are not world class. It is the students which are setting the high standards in these institutes,” he said, adding, “It is difficult to attract good talent in a governmental set-up. It is even more difficult to retain such talents if you manage to attract them. This is true of the CSIR laboratories as well.”
Backing Ramesh to the hilt,, Union Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal questioned whether India had any world class institutions.
"In the situation today, is even one of our institutions world class? If it is world class, it must be in the top 100, 150 institutions in the world. That is not evident," Sibal said.
In a prompt response, alumni associations from IIT Delhi and IIT Kharagpur demanded higher salary and perks for IIT teaching faculty to attract new minds in faculty to sustain IIT brand globally.
"Opening of new IITs by government without recruiting new faculty has already burdened the existing faculty in IITs. Almost every citizen in the country is paying education cess to ensure that our gurus (IIT and other teachers) are paid well. Most of the IITs are already facing faculty shortage," said IIT Kharagpur Alumni Association member Y.P.S. Suri.
"The current pay scales of IIT faculty are so unattractive that a fresh graduate from IIT attracts more salary," he said.
Programme director of the IIT Delhi Alumni Association V.K. Saluja demanded that the government make faculty salary levels inspiring enough to attract new minds. According to him, adding new IITs has made this problem more acute and hence the urgency of the matter.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in his report card on the UPA Government’s completion of two years in office did not have much to write home about on the state of higher education and its administration.
"In higher education, we moved forward in strengthening the legislative framework by finalising or introducing in Parliament a number of bills," he said in the report.
He mentioned that three new Indian Institutes of Managements (IIMs) -- at Rohatak, Ranchi and Raipur -- commenced their academic sessions in 2010-11, while the IIM at Tiruchirapalli was operationalised with executive programmes. All the new National Institutes of Technology also started functioning from July 2010, the Prime Minister said.
Obsessed with only an issue at a time (corruption this time around), the media too glossed over this pertinent aspect.
A review of the developments in the past two years reveal the debilitating state of the administrative health of higher education in the country.
The chairman of the Medical Council of India, a senior functionary at the University Grants Commission, the head of the All India Council for Technical Education, , the functioning of the National Council for Teachers Education have all been found steeped in corruption, and irregularities.
Serious allegations have been leveled against the vice-chancellors of major central universities such as the Vishwabharti, Shantineketan, Aligarh Muslim University and North Eastern Hill University, Shillong. The vice-chancellor of Allahabad University, a central university, is alleged to have indulged in recruitment-related irregularities.
Both academia and intelligentsia have brought these issues to the notice of the Government both within and outside Parliament but it remains as nonchalant and indifferent about it as ever.
The UGC and the Central Vigilance Commission reportedly took note of all such irregularities, but these bodies do not have the teeth to do anything.
The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library is a highly rated institution for researchers, directly administered by the Union department of culture. Its director, a reputed historian, has been allegedly found to be indulging in irregularities, but even vociferous protests from a cross section of academicians have fallen on deaf ears.
While Sibal has been making a lot of hue and cry about reforming higher education, the ground realities tell an altogether different story. The bankruptcy of ideas with regard to the higher education and lack of political will and sincerity to bring about the much needed reforms appears all the more ironic considering the fact that the Prime Minister himself was a Professor at one of the leading institutions of higher education.
The appointment and continuation in office of two Vice-Chancellors of two of the most prestigious and sensitive central universities is a case in point.
Prof A N Rai took over as Vice-Chancellor of the North Eastern Hill University in 2010 amid protests from the student community who opposed his appointment over his ‘tainted credentials’ in Mizoram University.
Rai has been accused by the Mizoram Students Union (MSU) of violating a memorandum of understanding (MoU) and misintepreting the eligiblity criteria of the University Grant Commission (UGC) for the appointment of lecturers.
The Mizoram University had signed an MoU with the MSU Sep 15, 2009 that six qualified local candidates would be called for interview for recruitment in various vacant posts. However, Rai appointed non-local lecturers to the post, thus violating the MoU.
But instead of addressing the concerns of the students from the sensitive region, Rai has since been taken as an advisor to the National Advisory Council.
Most disconcerting is the issue concerning the AMU vice-chancellor. Prof P K Abdul Azis, who was appointed by the HRD Ministry in 2007.
The Principal Accountant General (vide AB(C) 09-10/ 249 dated 17-11-2009 to HRD ministry) indicted the VC, the registrar and the finance officer for gross financial embezzlement and other irregularities. It says, 'There is a complete collapse of financial management in the university and the VC and the registrar instead of stopping this frequent financial irregularity themselves became a part of this'.
Subsequently, in April 2009, a ‘Presidential’ inquiry into allegations of financial bungling and general impropriety was initiated against Prof Azis in the wake of several memoranda by some members of the AMU Executive Council and AMU Old Boys Association to the then HRD Minister Arjun Singh and President Pratibha Patil. Arjun Singh has passed away since then but the probe is yet to make any substantial progress.
Unfortunately, the irregularities are being either ignored or downplayed despite the sensitivities attached with these universities.
According to insiders and students, Irregularities have become the hallmark of entrance tests to different professional courses, conducted by the AMU. but no deterrent punishment has ever been given to any of the high functionaries. Irregularities in academic recruitments are a routine phenomenon.
No wonder, In his best seller, Imagining India, UID Project Head Nandan Nilikeni has pointed out that most undemocratic exercise in democratic India is academic recruitments.
The Prof Yashpal Committee, appointed by the Manmohan Singh Government in its final report to the HRD Ministry too criticised the UPA government’s policy of setting up IIMs and IITs indiscriminately, saying that mere numerical expansion, without any understanding of symptoms of poor education, would not help.
Terming the government’s indiscriminate establishment of educational institutes as a “nervous and hurried response”, the panel said, “Creation of a few institutions of excellence and some Central universities, without addressing the issue of deprivation that the state-funded universities are suffering from, would only sharpen the existing inequalities.”
Expressing concern on the mushrooming of engineering and management colleges, that had "largely become business entities dispensing very poor quality education", Yashpal committee lamented the growth of deemed universities and called for a complete ban on further grant of such status. Existing ones, the committee said, should be given three years to develop as a university and fulfil the prescribed accreditation norms.
Raising doubts about the source of funding of private education providers, the committee said mostly it was either "unaccounted wealth from business and political enterprises or from capitation fees".
The committee said a plethora of regulatory bodies like UGC, AICTE, NCTE et al be replaced by a seven-member Commission for Higher Education and Research (CHER) under an Act of Parliament. It has also recommended, obviously to buffer the new regulator against political pressures, that the position of chairperson of the proposed commission be analogous to that of election commissioners.
It also said that the jurisdiction of other regulators -- Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India and others -- be confined to administrative matters, with universities taking up their academic responsibilities.
The report recommended that IITs and IIMs should be encouraged to diversify and expand their scope to work as full-fledged universities.
On the contentious issue of the entry of foreign universities, the committee strikes a cautious note. “Giving an open license to all and sundry, carrying a foreign ownership tag to function like universities in India, most of them not even known in their own countries, would only help them earn profit for their parent institutions located outside or accrue profit to the shareholders. Such institutions must give an Indian degree and be subject to all rules and regulations that would apply to any Indian university”.
Nilekani had cautioned in his book, 'Reforms in higher education can not be bargained away -- they form the bedrock for a vibrant economy, the place from where we can, given the chance, build powerful and sustainable new ideas for our future.'
The million dollar question is “as it deals with existential issues, is anybody in the UPA Government bothered about such fundamental concerns”?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
UP Farmers’ Violence Raises Larger Questions
A wave of unrest is once again sweeping across Western Uttar Pradesh over the land acquired for the Yamuna Expressway project. Agitating farmers in Bhatta Parsaul village of Greater Noida had last Friday held captive employees of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. When security personnel went to rescue the officials the next day, the farmers attacked them, and in the violence two farmers and two police personnel were killed. Fifteen people, including the district magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar, Deepak Agrawal,
were critically injured in the clashes,
The farmers are demanding increased financial compensation for the land they claim has been forcibly taken away from them to build the 165-km Yamuna Expressway, between New Delhi and Agra. When ready, the expressway is expected to cut travelling time between New Delhi and Agra by an hour.
Chief Minister Mayawati has been blaming the opposition, saying it has been stoking the unrest that has already spread to parts of Agra, Aligarh-Tappal and Mathura.
Former BJP president Rajnath Singh as well Samajwadi Party leader Shivpal Yadav, who is also the Leader of Opposition in the state Assembly, were taken into preventive custody as they headed to the protest epicentre in Greater Noida on Monday.
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and party General Secretary Digvijaya Singh visited Bhatta Parsaul village in Greater Noida even as the party demanded a judicial probe into the violence.
Ironically, the war of words between Congress and SP on the one side and Mayawati on the other comes barely within days of the bonhomie between the three rivals in the state politics, witnessed in Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, which probed the 2G scam.
Last August too, proceedings in both houses of Parliament were disrupted after members of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Samajwadi Party vehemently protested the deaths of three farmers in police firing in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura district. A platoon commander of the Provincial Armed Constabulary was also killed in the violence.
The state government had then tried to silence the protests by hiking the compensation but it found only a few takers for the sop. What has complicated the issue is that land was being acquired not just for the road project but also for townships to be built by the private party in charge of constructing the expressway.
While the Mayawati Government is facing the music from all sides right now and is likely to suffer electorally also, the problem, as witnessed earlier in West Bengal, Orissa, Karnataka and other states, is likely to crop up again and again across the country as India urbanises and takes away fertile land from farmers to build townships to accommodate a burgeoning middle class, factories and office complexes, to build roads, mines, power plants and other infrastructural pre-requisites of post-agrarian modernity.
This leads one to the larger question of land acquisitions and the scope of the government in developing infrastructure projects. While there is a logic for the government to acquire land to construct roads, the million dollar question is whether it should also facilitate development of townships alongside by private builders.
As a commentator rightly put it, “a skewed understanding of what constitutes public purpose and private interests is at the heart of the problem. Clearly, the state governments ought to focus on building road and allow market forces to transform villages alongside the road into urban centres in an organic manner.”
Even the nation’s apex court appears to be in two minds on the issue. Last year, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and B.S. Chauhan, in a landmark judgment had said: “the whole issue of development appears to be so simple, logical and commonsensical. And yet, to millions of Indians, development is a dreadful and hateful word that is aimed at denying them even the source of their sustenance.”
The Bench said “the resistance with which the state's well meaning efforts at development and economic growth are met makes one to think about the reasons for such opposition to the state's endeavours for development. Why is the state's perception and vision of development at such great odds with the people it purports to develop? And why are their rights so dispensable?
Justice Alam said the fears expressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly had been confirmed. “A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens.”
“This is not to say that the relevant laws are perfect and very sympathetic towards the dispossessed. There are various studies that detail the impact of dispossession from their lands on tribal people. On many occasions laws are implemented only partially. The scheme of land acquisition often comes with assurances of schools, hospitals, roads, and employment. The initial promises, however, mostly remain illusory”, the apex court observed.
Ironically, last week, the same Supreme Court made it clear to the Karnataka Government that it must implement the controversial Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project in terms of its 2006 judgment without further delay.
When the state Advocate General submitted that survey in respect of phase ‘C' could not be completed in view of protest by farmers and the law and order problem, Justice V S Sirpurkar retorted “if you [Government] are afraid of law and order problem, then don't rule the State. Farmers will always protest if their lands are acquired; that can't be the reason for not implementing the project”.
Way back in April 2007, the Karnataka High Court had stated that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board was “indiscriminately” acquiring agricultural land in and around Bangalore and Bangalore urban and rural districts and Board officials had thrown all norms to the winds and in some cases, acquired entire villages.
The million dollar question is whether to accept the court’s earlier observation about the impact of dispossession from their land on tribal people or that “the farmers will always protest if their lands are acquired”.
A comparative study of the Indian and Chinese experiences vis-a-vis SEZs (Special Economic Zones or Special Exploitative Zones, as activists put it) makes it abundantly clear that while mostly coastal wasteland has been given for SEZs in China, in India, it has been mostly fertile cultivated land.
Unlike in China, where the ownership of such zones rests with the state, in India, it lies with the private corporations and yes, despite the highly successful experience of Shenzhen, the Chinese have gone only for seven SEZs so far whereas in India, where SEZs have been largely unsuccessful and faced bloody, bitter resistance, we are going for 400-500 zones, more than the total number in the world.
Besides, there are complaints from farmers in many states that land acquired for SEZs was being used for `real estate' through `denotification', with owners saying recession has made SEZs unviable.
In Singur, the average size of the holding agitating farmers stood to lose was one-twelfth an acre, which could only yield a meagre living. But these tiny patches of land were the only sources of livelihood for their owners and it made no sense for them to give these away without alternative, certain and better sources of livelihood being in place.
There are enough reasons to believe that the skewed land acquisition policy has contributed to the growth of the Naxalite movement in the country, which the Forbes magazine recently described as India’s Dirty War.
One does not understand why the Government wants to give thousands of hectares of land which is agricultural land, for non-agricultural purposes. Where are farmers in the entire structure? While state Governments talk of job growth but they do not talk of how many thousands of people are uprooted from their homes and culture and are deprived of their sole source of livelihood.
Last year, Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Ajit Singh had drafted a `land acquisition amendment bill 2010' and sent it to leaders across parties, demanding that State withdraw itself from buying land for private entities by shrinking its role to 15%, and that any acquired land not put to intended use inside five years should revert to its original owners. He wants a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for every acquisition which displaces 100 families in plain areas and 25 families in hilly areas.
For SIA, UPA's bill seeks displacement of 400 families in plains.
UPA's amendment bills on Land acquisitions and Relief & Rehabilitation, shot down by Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, only talk of the land reverting to government. Banerjee had vetoed UPA bills on the grounds that post-Nandigram, she cannot back a bill which legitimises state role in acquiring land for private parties.
The experiences in Singur, Nandigram, Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Bangalore highlight the need for a progressive land acquisition law that clarifies the role and responsibility of the state, the private sector and the stakeholders, in the matter of land acquisitions while assuring fairness and certainty of long-term sustainable income and to those who lose land and livelihood. With reduced forest cover, decereased agricultural growth, subsidies and income and spiralling cost of living, the tribals and farmers should be made facilitators and partners in an inclusive growth model and not viewed as disposable obstacles on the path of development.
One can afford to ignore this festering wound only at the nation’s peril.
*********************************************************************************
were critically injured in the clashes,
The farmers are demanding increased financial compensation for the land they claim has been forcibly taken away from them to build the 165-km Yamuna Expressway, between New Delhi and Agra. When ready, the expressway is expected to cut travelling time between New Delhi and Agra by an hour.
Chief Minister Mayawati has been blaming the opposition, saying it has been stoking the unrest that has already spread to parts of Agra, Aligarh-Tappal and Mathura.
Former BJP president Rajnath Singh as well Samajwadi Party leader Shivpal Yadav, who is also the Leader of Opposition in the state Assembly, were taken into preventive custody as they headed to the protest epicentre in Greater Noida on Monday.
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and party General Secretary Digvijaya Singh visited Bhatta Parsaul village in Greater Noida even as the party demanded a judicial probe into the violence.
Ironically, the war of words between Congress and SP on the one side and Mayawati on the other comes barely within days of the bonhomie between the three rivals in the state politics, witnessed in Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, which probed the 2G scam.
Last August too, proceedings in both houses of Parliament were disrupted after members of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Samajwadi Party vehemently protested the deaths of three farmers in police firing in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura district. A platoon commander of the Provincial Armed Constabulary was also killed in the violence.
The state government had then tried to silence the protests by hiking the compensation but it found only a few takers for the sop. What has complicated the issue is that land was being acquired not just for the road project but also for townships to be built by the private party in charge of constructing the expressway.
While the Mayawati Government is facing the music from all sides right now and is likely to suffer electorally also, the problem, as witnessed earlier in West Bengal, Orissa, Karnataka and other states, is likely to crop up again and again across the country as India urbanises and takes away fertile land from farmers to build townships to accommodate a burgeoning middle class, factories and office complexes, to build roads, mines, power plants and other infrastructural pre-requisites of post-agrarian modernity.
This leads one to the larger question of land acquisitions and the scope of the government in developing infrastructure projects. While there is a logic for the government to acquire land to construct roads, the million dollar question is whether it should also facilitate development of townships alongside by private builders.
As a commentator rightly put it, “a skewed understanding of what constitutes public purpose and private interests is at the heart of the problem. Clearly, the state governments ought to focus on building road and allow market forces to transform villages alongside the road into urban centres in an organic manner.”
Even the nation’s apex court appears to be in two minds on the issue. Last year, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and B.S. Chauhan, in a landmark judgment had said: “the whole issue of development appears to be so simple, logical and commonsensical. And yet, to millions of Indians, development is a dreadful and hateful word that is aimed at denying them even the source of their sustenance.”
The Bench said “the resistance with which the state's well meaning efforts at development and economic growth are met makes one to think about the reasons for such opposition to the state's endeavours for development. Why is the state's perception and vision of development at such great odds with the people it purports to develop? And why are their rights so dispensable?
Justice Alam said the fears expressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly had been confirmed. “A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens.”
“This is not to say that the relevant laws are perfect and very sympathetic towards the dispossessed. There are various studies that detail the impact of dispossession from their lands on tribal people. On many occasions laws are implemented only partially. The scheme of land acquisition often comes with assurances of schools, hospitals, roads, and employment. The initial promises, however, mostly remain illusory”, the apex court observed.
Ironically, last week, the same Supreme Court made it clear to the Karnataka Government that it must implement the controversial Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project in terms of its 2006 judgment without further delay.
When the state Advocate General submitted that survey in respect of phase ‘C' could not be completed in view of protest by farmers and the law and order problem, Justice V S Sirpurkar retorted “if you [Government] are afraid of law and order problem, then don't rule the State. Farmers will always protest if their lands are acquired; that can't be the reason for not implementing the project”.
Way back in April 2007, the Karnataka High Court had stated that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board was “indiscriminately” acquiring agricultural land in and around Bangalore and Bangalore urban and rural districts and Board officials had thrown all norms to the winds and in some cases, acquired entire villages.
The million dollar question is whether to accept the court’s earlier observation about the impact of dispossession from their land on tribal people or that “the farmers will always protest if their lands are acquired”.
A comparative study of the Indian and Chinese experiences vis-a-vis SEZs (Special Economic Zones or Special Exploitative Zones, as activists put it) makes it abundantly clear that while mostly coastal wasteland has been given for SEZs in China, in India, it has been mostly fertile cultivated land.
Unlike in China, where the ownership of such zones rests with the state, in India, it lies with the private corporations and yes, despite the highly successful experience of Shenzhen, the Chinese have gone only for seven SEZs so far whereas in India, where SEZs have been largely unsuccessful and faced bloody, bitter resistance, we are going for 400-500 zones, more than the total number in the world.
Besides, there are complaints from farmers in many states that land acquired for SEZs was being used for `real estate' through `denotification', with owners saying recession has made SEZs unviable.
In Singur, the average size of the holding agitating farmers stood to lose was one-twelfth an acre, which could only yield a meagre living. But these tiny patches of land were the only sources of livelihood for their owners and it made no sense for them to give these away without alternative, certain and better sources of livelihood being in place.
There are enough reasons to believe that the skewed land acquisition policy has contributed to the growth of the Naxalite movement in the country, which the Forbes magazine recently described as India’s Dirty War.
One does not understand why the Government wants to give thousands of hectares of land which is agricultural land, for non-agricultural purposes. Where are farmers in the entire structure? While state Governments talk of job growth but they do not talk of how many thousands of people are uprooted from their homes and culture and are deprived of their sole source of livelihood.
Last year, Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Ajit Singh had drafted a `land acquisition amendment bill 2010' and sent it to leaders across parties, demanding that State withdraw itself from buying land for private entities by shrinking its role to 15%, and that any acquired land not put to intended use inside five years should revert to its original owners. He wants a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for every acquisition which displaces 100 families in plain areas and 25 families in hilly areas.
For SIA, UPA's bill seeks displacement of 400 families in plains.
UPA's amendment bills on Land acquisitions and Relief & Rehabilitation, shot down by Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, only talk of the land reverting to government. Banerjee had vetoed UPA bills on the grounds that post-Nandigram, she cannot back a bill which legitimises state role in acquiring land for private parties.
The experiences in Singur, Nandigram, Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Bangalore highlight the need for a progressive land acquisition law that clarifies the role and responsibility of the state, the private sector and the stakeholders, in the matter of land acquisitions while assuring fairness and certainty of long-term sustainable income and to those who lose land and livelihood. With reduced forest cover, decereased agricultural growth, subsidies and income and spiralling cost of living, the tribals and farmers should be made facilitators and partners in an inclusive growth model and not viewed as disposable obstacles on the path of development.
One can afford to ignore this festering wound only at the nation’s peril.
*********************************************************************************
Sunday, January 2, 2011
A Guide for Practicing Managers
With liberalization and globalization, modern management principles and practices are being implemented across India’s corporate sector. Business schools are mushrooming all over and prospective managers are being churned out in thousands. Fresh graduates from leading institutions including Indian Institutes of Management are being offered unprecedented salaries. Yet, after the initial euphoria, there is a crisis of confidence at the middle management level. Burnouts, disillusionment leading to frustration and high rate of attrition have become common features.
Businesses, particularly start ups and first generation entrepreneur driven firms, are finding it difficult to grow without the vision of management and abilities of its people. The manager of today has to enable the creation, acceptance and implementation of this vision. The consumer needs, competition, technology and environment are changing at a fast pace. The business leaders have to be observant, creative and proactive in their search for quick responses to the changes.
‘Management by Walking’ by Dr A K Agarwal, a first generation entrepreneur, focuses on the qualities and process that need be imbibed by practicing managers, especially middle level and above, to keep ahead in the race for excellence. The book gives practical insights and tips to enable management professionals to introspect and realize their growth potential.
Desirable leadership qualities such as power of observation; ability to analyze and interpret; being creative and innovative; being proactive etc. have been discussed in detail in the book. ‘Management by Walking’ facilitates the practicing of these qualities in a non-obtrusive manner.
As instances of corporate malpractices and manipulations surface, the book offers a strong message that war cannot be won from the boardroom. It can only be won on the battlefield. The battlefield for the management is the marketplace or production area or technology development area or customer support area; depending upon the task assigned.
According to the author, an integral role of the management professionals is to encourage and facilitate the contribution and collection of inputs from all the team members through collaboration. Motivation and loyalty are the other byproducts of collaboration.
With a rich industry experience of over three decades behind him, the Engineer turned CEO emphasizes that motivational leadership goes a long way in inspiring and achieving high levels of productivity and loyalty from not only one’s teams, but from business partners as well. Time spent in understanding the motivational criteria are like a fixed deposit that continues to give you returns for a long period, says the book.
As the country emerges as a leading economy of the world, the book initiates the reader into a journey of learning and adapting to the dynamically changing needs of the businesses.
Businesses, particularly start ups and first generation entrepreneur driven firms, are finding it difficult to grow without the vision of management and abilities of its people. The manager of today has to enable the creation, acceptance and implementation of this vision. The consumer needs, competition, technology and environment are changing at a fast pace. The business leaders have to be observant, creative and proactive in their search for quick responses to the changes.
‘Management by Walking’ by Dr A K Agarwal, a first generation entrepreneur, focuses on the qualities and process that need be imbibed by practicing managers, especially middle level and above, to keep ahead in the race for excellence. The book gives practical insights and tips to enable management professionals to introspect and realize their growth potential.
Desirable leadership qualities such as power of observation; ability to analyze and interpret; being creative and innovative; being proactive etc. have been discussed in detail in the book. ‘Management by Walking’ facilitates the practicing of these qualities in a non-obtrusive manner.
As instances of corporate malpractices and manipulations surface, the book offers a strong message that war cannot be won from the boardroom. It can only be won on the battlefield. The battlefield for the management is the marketplace or production area or technology development area or customer support area; depending upon the task assigned.
According to the author, an integral role of the management professionals is to encourage and facilitate the contribution and collection of inputs from all the team members through collaboration. Motivation and loyalty are the other byproducts of collaboration.
With a rich industry experience of over three decades behind him, the Engineer turned CEO emphasizes that motivational leadership goes a long way in inspiring and achieving high levels of productivity and loyalty from not only one’s teams, but from business partners as well. Time spent in understanding the motivational criteria are like a fixed deposit that continues to give you returns for a long period, says the book.
As the country emerges as a leading economy of the world, the book initiates the reader into a journey of learning and adapting to the dynamically changing needs of the businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
