India ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: L'Inde

By Praful Bidwai, 09 August, 2006, Frontline

A crass and hysterical nationalism is taking hold among a section of the Indian middle class in response to the Mumbai blasts. This nationalism is paranoid. It considers India uniquely vulnerable to terrorism because its state is exceptionally soft, pusillanimous and "cowardly". At the same time, it wants a militant response - armed attacks on Pakistan. Its votaries say it is not enough just to suspend India-Pakistan talks; India must teach Pakistan "a lesson". Some advocates of this view have strong sympathies for Hindutva and harp on the "timidity of Hindus", a phrase the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) fondly uses to explain why India has been repeatedly subjugated by "aggressors". But even if the communal element is excised from this view, its essential content remains unaltered. It advocates a particular model unfolding before our eyes - namely, Israel's aggression in Gaza and Lebanon, after the arrest of one-third of the Palestinian Authority's Cabinet. India would be "effete", unlike Israel, if it fails to respond to threats to its security with all-out punitive attacks.

This view was encouraged by the state's confused initial response to the Mumbai blasts. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's address to the nation did not reflect the gravity of the destruction in Mumbai, which is of the same order as Madrid 2004, the world's worst recent terrorist incident, next only to 9/11. In a recent English-language television programme in which I participated, the anchor asked whether India should follow Israel's example. While the participants argued against this on differing grounds, 94 per cent of the audience agreed with the proposition through email and SMS responses. In keeping with such extreme opinions, the government hardened its stand and cancelled the Foreign Secretary-level meeting, issued belligerent statements, rounded up hundreds of Muslims, and mindlessly banned access to blogs on the Internet.

It is of vital importance that we view the Mumbai blasts in perspective and formulate a rational response that defends the interests and security of the Indian people. To start with, it is not at all clear that the attacks exposed India's "exceptional" vulnerability. A similar attack could well have occurred on suburban trains in Paris, New York, Moscow or London and produced similar damage. True, the Mumbai suburban rail system is even more crowded than the New York subway. But it is nearly impossible to prevent such attacks altogether. Beyond a point, no state can anticipate such events, screen passengers, check all unattended baggage, and so on. The very pace of metropolitan life makes such checks impracticable.

India lags behind in quickness of response, in sounding warnings and providing emergency services. We have failed to create the infrastructure necessary to deal with mishaps such as train coaches falling on tracks, which need to be quickly cleared, and so on. There is a strong case for installing inexpensive closed-circuit television cameras at important transport hubs. But this is not a watertight guarantee that terrorist attacks will never occur. No state, however powerful, especially a democratic one, can provide 100 per cent security or guarantee absence of violence. It can take precautionary measures, be more vigilant, and improve police efficiency and procedures. That is where India fails badly.

Secondly, the response of the Mumbai and railway police was tardy and meagre. Citizens themselves had to rush victims to hospitals and arrange for blood much before the state acted. There was public anger that the state was not doing enough or being responsive. This grievance is legitimate.

However, a rational long-term response to terrorist violence can only be based on systematic investigation to establish the identity of the culprits, their motives, and their internal and external links. Only thus can a responsible government conclude that the terrorists received encouragement or help from abroad - in the present case, Pakistan. But senior officials, including National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, rushed to judgment and selectively briefed the media alleging that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Students Islamic Movement of India and other organisations allegedly supported by Pakistani clandestine agencies were involved. Most national newspapers duly echoed such views based upon mere guesswork and speculation.

The assessment that Pakistan was behind the Mumbai attacks is open to doubt on two grounds. In the past too, similar allegations were made. Yet, in no major case have the culprits' identity or links with Pakistan been fully established and convictions secured (an exception being the Parliament building attack case, now under appeal). Accusations about their links with "sleeper cells", or agencies operating through Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal remain unsupported under Indian laws of evidence.

The second reason pertains to recent developments in Pakistan and in India-Pakistan relations. General Musharraf is under tremendous pressure from the U.S., other Western powers and China to demonstrate that he will take on jehadi groups and comply with the anti-terrorist commitments he made in 2004. It is hard to believe, at this point in the evolution of the India-Pakistan dialogue, that it makes sense for Pakistani agencies to risk wrecking the dialogue process by encouraging or instigating gross violence such as the Mumbai bombings.

It is possible that some "rogue elements" of the Inter-Services Intelligence could have done this. But the central issue is Manmohan Singh's assessment that the sheer scale of the attack points to external involvement. Any number of Indian groups with no live contact with foreign agencies is capable of getting hold of explosives and planting them. Such groups learn by watching others in different parts of the world. Enough hatreds and injustices exist in Indian society, which can explain the kind of ideological pathologies that encourage them to visit violence on innocent civilians. It is a terrible, very sick, pathology. But such groups exist.

India has a huge amount to gain from the peace process with Pakistan. It would be foolhardy to make it a hostage to speculation about Pakistani involvement in terrorist violence. In any cultural, economic or social interaction, India stands to gain more than Pakistan. Apart from launching bus and train services, India has received an assurance from Musharraf that the Kashmir issue would be discussed on condition that there can be no redrawing of boundaries. The more we blame Pakistan, the more obsessively we look for "the foreign hand", the farther we get from the task of looking inwards, to examine what is wrong with our police, intelligence agencies and criminal justice system so that we can address some of the cesspool of grievances in which violence and extremist ideologies flourish.

The "hit-Pakistan-teach-Pakistan-a-lesson" clamour is a complete negation of any reasonable, balanced, mature and sober approach to the Mumbai blasts - just as was the 10-month-long military mobilisation after the Parliament building attack, which achieved nothing. What gives the demand a dangerous edge is the advocacy of Israel-style militaristic approaches. Its proponents admire Israel for unleashing high levels of violence upon its adversaries when threatened. But, to start with, Israel is not a state that respects international law. It has the longest history in the world of violation of Security Council resolutions, such as 242 and 338, as well as the World Court judgment on the apartheid wall. India cannot and should not emulate it. This will encourage terrible lawlessness and violence in our own neighbourhood.

Secondly, what Israel is now doing is illegal, immoral and politically disastrous. The roots of the current conflict go back to Israel's recent liquidation of Abu Jamal Samhanada, newly appointed security-chief of the Interior Ministry of the Palestinian Authority. This was calculated, as many past Israeli actions, to provoke. It brought on retaliatory attacks from pro-Hamas militants with crude home-made Qassam rockets which inflicted minimal damage. In response, Israel launched devastating attacks on civilians, including a picnicking family of eight. The ensuing violence eventually led to the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the capture of one.

Under international law, it is perfectly legitimate for people under occupation to militarily target occupying military personnel, although not to abduct them. But Israel has itself practised abduction and kidnappings and made hostage-prisoner swaps, as in 1968, 1983, 1985 and 2004. In June, it took one-third of the Palestinian Cabinet hostage. It escalated its attack on Hamas with a view to destroying its entire military infrastructure. Israeli troops cut off Gaza's water and power supply and inflicted collective punishment on civilians who were in no way responsible for the earlier attacks or abduction. Cutting off electricity means cutting off refrigeration - and people's food supplies.

Israel has since invaded Lebanon, in response to a Hizbollah raid on its forces. One need not justify Hizbollah's actions to note the sheer disproportion of the violence Israel unleashed on civilians. More than 380 were killed in 10 days. The number of Israeli casualties is not even one-tenth this number. Israel targeted civilian installations in Beirut and devastated its infrastructure. Israel hopes to weaken decisively the Hizbollah militarily and further the objective of establishing a Greater Israel, which annexes large parts of the West Bank.

This objective can only be achieved if Israel destroys all regional challenges and unilaterally draws - for the first time ever - its national boundaries after dividing up Palestinian territory into a series of Bantustans through the apartheid wall. To do this, it must claim that there is no Palestinian agency with which it can negotiate. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza even while continuing with the colonisation of the West Bank must be seen in this perspective. To these ends, Israel has inflicted cruel forms of collective punishment, as well as large-scale violence, upon non-combatant civilians. Collective punishment is impermissible under international law, as are sieges of cities, which starve them of food and water - the state of Beirut today after 15 years of recovery and revival as one of West Asia's liveliest cities. Israel's unconscionable military offensive is an act of international brigandage linked to expansionism. Those who want India to emulate Israel assign the most obnoxious motives and purposes to our state. Obviously, they see nothing wrong with expansionism, aggression, occupation, disproportionate force, hostage-taking and outright assassination of suspects - actions that are punishable under international law.

India is being asked to follow Israel's bellicose, lawless and brigand-like conduct on the presumption that "shock-and-awe" methods, although excessive, disproportionate and immoral, successfully deter future terrorist attacks. However, this presumption has been repeatedly falsified. Israel's coercion has failed to deter adversaries or generate security for Israeli citizens. In fact, the moral force of the first Intifada derived from the determination that Palestinian youth showed when fighting the mighty Israeli military with nothing more than stones.

Israel is one of the world's most militarised societies: more than 576,000 of its 6.5 million people serve in its armed forces. The country probably has the world's highest density of surveillance equipment such as X-ray machines, closed-circuit cameras and explosive detectors. And yet, suicide-bombers infiltrate populated high-security areas and kill. Such is the deep sense of injustice, injury, insult and resentment that Israel's excesses have created among its neighbours; that its own citizens cannot remotely hope to become secure in the absence of a just settlement of the Palestinian question.

It should be demeaning for India even to think of following a model based on devotion to violence and cultivation of hatred and prejudice. It is a sign of the moral and political degeneration of the Indian elite that it has stooped to clamour for attacks on Pakistan, without even establishing its complicity in the Mumbai carnage.

It is incumbent upon all those who value sanity, sobriety and principle in public life to counter such crass and extreme militarist nationalism. Such extremism is the stuff of fascism.

Copyright © 2006, Frontline.

C.R .Shridhar

The Ruling elite of our nation is in the grip of delusions of grandeur. The GDP growth rate of 8% is trotted out as a sign that India is on the threshold of becoming an economic superpower. A bright future awaits India with its revitalized economic policy of liberalization, privatization and an open door policy of attracting foreign capital. A new animal energy is infusing corporate India, which is headed for gigantic growth propelled by innovation and its ability to create anything from nanoparticles to giant rockets. It appears that India's tryst with destiny is unstoppable.

To the less gullible, the picture appears less rosy as India is in the throes of a shocking agrarian crisis fuelled by falling returns from agriculture coupled with debt and crop failure. More disturbing is the violence that the State inflicts on its citizens through encounter killings, police torture and custodial deaths.

Though the Left party has questioned the gains of the new economic policy formulated by the UPA government, there appears to be very little concern about gross human rights violations, which occur throughout the country. While there have been impassioned debates for the Washington consensus favouring MNC's in the media, there has been at best a token concern for the marginalized poor facing police brutality on a day to day basis. There is deafening silence in our media about the fact that though India has signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), there has been no ratification on the pretext that existing laws have adequate provisions to prevent torture, in addition to constitutional safeguards.

Respect for human rights is the sine qua non of any civilized society and the disrespect for human rights is inimical to civil liberties granted to its citizens by the state. By this standard, the Indian State lamentably fails and is a cause for concern for those who value civil liberties. The prevalence of torture and other human rights violations occurs both in communist and non-communist states in India. Both the states of West Bengal and Kerala have witnessed police brutality even with the Left parties in power.

The Amnesty International in its report dated 10-08-2001 about torture in West Bengal observed, "Police are being urged to use whatever means necessary to deal with crime and are often allowed to use torture as a substitute for investigations, while action is rarely taken against the perpetrators. This system of policing is having little if any impact on crime." CPI (M) leader Benoy Konar, defending police brutality once said, "It must be viewed whether police is carrying out torture with a correct aim or an incorrect aim...In a class divided society, the police has the duty of carrying out repression.... You [journalists] have the pen in your hands, the police has the stick." Hence, it would be a mistake to view human rights abuse from an ideological perspective.

The wide prevalence of encounter deaths or extra-judicial killings at the hands of the police has been documented by human rights organizations and remains a part of our dark history in post independent India. A study conducted by the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network noted that encounter killings were not isolated incidents but occurred throughout India. They are part of a "deliberate and conscious state administrative practice" for which successive Indian governments must bear responsibility. Indeed, successive Indian governments have adopted a de facto policy sanctioning extra-judicial killings by members of the police forces, army and security personnel.

The most horrific examples include the operations against Naxalite movements in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and the operations against Punjab extremists. Tamil Nadu and Kerala committed the excesses of encounter killing during the days of Emergency. The Vimadlal Commission took the lid off so-called encounters in Andhra Pradesh during the mid-1970s. Uttar Pradesh is noted for it's encounter deaths and this has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. The paramilitary operations in Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur and Assam cause grave concern as human rights activists report wide spread instances of encounter killings, rape and torture of militant suspects.

The complicity of State and Central governments in encounter killings could be gleaned by the fact that they do not vigorously conduct prosecution of the guilty nor is the investigation thorough to bring the guilty to book. The National Human Rights Commission has not proved very effective in checking encounter killings, as it's recommendations are not implemented by the State and Central governments. The guidelines issued by the NHRC in matters regarding encounter killings are rarely followed. The long delays in courts in prosecuting the guilty police personnel creates a climate of impunity for such crimes to flourish. The governments also reward policemen or paramilitary personnel, which actually encourage encounter killing. The compensation paid to the surviving members of the victims murdered by the police personnel remains a pittance.

The use of torture and third degree methods against suspects in police lockups remains standard operating procedure in post-Independence India. Human Rights organizations note that torture is used against secessionist groups, against suspects belonging to the poorer sections of our society for extracting confessions and bribes and also used as extra-legal punishment (teach you a lesson).

In areas such as Jammu & Kashmir, there exist a number of detention cells where militant suspects are beaten and electric torture is meted out as routine punishment and to extract confessions or information. The methods of torture vary. For instance, in Assam, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab (particularly in areas where the Punjab police or Punjab paramilitary units operate) dislocation of ball and socket of the suspect appears to be the preferred mode of torture. Sometimes the choice is more eclectic with a judicious combination of aeroplane treatment (tying the hands of the suspect behind his back and suspending him over a beam, leading to shoulder dislocation), electric torture with cattle prod and roller treatment (crushing the muscles of the suspect with a wooden log being rolled on his leg). Of course, beating of suspects with belts and lathis is standard fare in most police lockups. Human Rights groups have recorded cases involving rape and sexual humiliation of woman suspects.

While the reported cases of custodial deaths are increasing in India, statistics are difficult to come by, as there is government apathy to transparency. However, on 12th May 2006, The Indian Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2006 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha with a view to curb custodial deaths. The amendment provides the presumption that when a suspect dies in police custody it is presumed that the police have caused the death and the onus of proof rests on the policemen to prove their innocence. While the amendment is certainly a welcome change in official attitude towards custodial deaths, it remains to be seen whether it would be effectively implemented in the courts.

Human Rights activists have also warned against Anti-terrorism and security laws in India as facilitating human right abuse by primarily targeting lower castes and minority communities. The security laws abuse specially targeted groups by prolonging detention without trial and by inflicting torture, which is responsible for custodial deaths. On September 25, 2006, the Committee on International Human Rights of the New York City Bar Association released a report, Anti-Terrorism and Security Laws in India, calling on the Indian government to limit its application of anti-terrorism laws. The report notes "Attentiveness to these human rights concerns is not simply a moral and legal imperative, but also a crucial strategic imperative. As the Supreme Court of India has recognized, 'terrorism often thrives where human rights are violated' and 'The lack of hope for justice provides breeding grounds for terrorism.'"

The report chillingly concludes that the sweeping powers given to the authority in such enactments as TADA [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act], POTA [Prevention of Terrorism Act], and UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act], were used predominantly not to prosecute and punish actual terrorists, but rather as a tool that enabled pervasive use of preventive detention and a variety of abuses by the police, including extortion and torture. Another unpopular act called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act has been sharply criticized for its 'oppression and high-handedness' by the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee and has asked for the scrapping of this draconian law. This act (AFPSA) was the rallying point of widespread protests in Manipur and in other parts of North East as it offered immunity to the army personnel guilty of indiscriminately killing innocent people.

Legislation to eradicate torture, encounter killings and custodial deaths may be effective up to a point and may decrease human rights abuse marginally. But laws need the backing of robust public opinion to be fully effective. Here, Sunshine India is seriously flawed. The middle class and the upper class seem to be totally self-absorbed in greed creed and its consumerist pretensions. Moreover, there is wide acceptance of 'tough police tactics' by the middle and upper classes. The issues of liberalism, values for a just and humane society do not resonate well with this class. Instead there is, in the words of Praful Bidwai, a social commentator, "growing illiberalism and intolerance... lack of moral clarity among large sections of middle class on issues of justice, fairness, pluralism, secularism and other constitutional values, leave alone compassion for the underprivileged."

With public opinion fragmented, human rights violations would continue unchecked with the brunt of abuse borne by the marginalized poor. A prospect, which we must admit, bodes ill for our Republic.

DesiCritics.ORG

Ajit Bhattacharjea, Hindustan Times, October 12, 2006

Four Octobers ago, a well-known Kashmiri journalist, Iftikhar Gilani, was in Tihar jail facing indefinite incarceration on concocted charges. He had been jailed after a cursory trial on June 9, 2002 and was abruptly released after seven months when the charges were withdrawn. Gilani had a rough time, but was relatively fortunate. As chief of bureau of the Kashmir Times in Delhi, he had many journalist friends and others who campaigned for his release. The charge against him under the Official Secrets Act was found to be fabricated.

The primary evidence produced by the police was a document on the hard disk of Gilani’s computer with details of the number of Indian security forces in Kashmir. But this was not secret information. It was, as he pleaded, a paper by one Nazir Kamal already published in the journal of the Pakistan Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad Papers, and taken from their website. Offers to demonstrate this by securing other copies of the paper or contacting the website were ignored. Gilani’s copy was doctored to make it appear secret. These and other details of the frantic efforts of the prosecution, and the officials behind it, to frame Gilani are detailed in his book, My Days in Prison. Fortunately, the patent failure of justice became impossible to justify and he was released on January 13, 2003. But for the influential friends who pursued his case, he may still have been in jail. The maximum sentence prescribed for an offence under the Official Secrets Act is 14 years.

I recall Gilani’s case because My Days in Prison indicates why the sentencing of Mohammad Afzal Guru to death by hanging has evoked passion and disbelief in the Valley. It documents the devious lengths to which investigative agencies are willing to go to be seen as saviours of the nation. Kashmir is familiar with stories of people being framed, of militants claimed killed by the security forces turning out to be innocent civilians, of young men disappearing without trace. Suspicions are reinforced when it is found that in Delhi, intelligence agencies are not above fabricating or distorting evidence to get credit for catching persons painted as threats to national security. In Afzal and Gilani’s cases, evidence of fabrication surfaced during hearings.

With stories concerning national security certain to get headlines, intelligence agencies try to exploit mediapersons to substantiate their charges and embarrass the defence. Hints are dropped about activities that further damage the suspect’s reputation or weaken his case. In the Gilani case, a newspaper reported that he had confessed his guilt, which he had not. In the Guru case, his counsel was quoted as suggesting that he preferred death by lethal injection to hanging, an implicit admission of guilt. He denied admitting any such preference. Intelligence personnel are keen on publicity. Arrangements to be filmed or photographed with a ‘catch’ are part of the routine; presumably with an eye on a reward.

Gilani’s account of his ordeal is detailed and credible. It contains names and designations. A copy of Afzal’s letter to his lawyer from jail has been circulated. It makes more painful reading, with descriptions of torture and extortion, but does not have the imprimatur of a published document. Even so, Afzal’s account of inadequate facilities for defence, the circumstantial nature of the evidence and other trial inadequacies seem sufficient to provide the scintilla of doubt about his guilt required to merit presidential clemency. It will be too late to make amends if evidence to the contrary is found after he has been hanged.

Justice must be seen to have been done especially in a case involving an attack on Parliament House. The Supreme Court did not find any evidence in the charge that Guru was a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. He was not directly involved in the attack or the planning, which was masterminded by three persons in Pakistan. Even if guilty as a conspirator, the view taken by the court raises more questions than it answers. The following is an extract from the judgment: “The incident which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender. The challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by these acts of terrorists and conspirators can only be compensated by giving the maximum punishment to the person who is proved to be a conspirator in this treacherous act. The appellant, who is a surrendered militant and who was bent upon repeating the acts of treason against the nation, is a menace to the society [and] should become extinct. Accordingly, we uphold the death sentence.”

Ajit Bhattacharjea is a former Director,Press Institute of India

Tuesday, 23 May 2006

R Arun Kumar, People's Democracy

THERE is an interesting story whose moral we all need to understand. A highly educated professional had gone to a village to meet his childhood friend who was a shepherd. Through the course of their conversation, the talk shifted to technology. The city-bred, foreign-returned friend claimed that he could tell the exact number of goats owned by the one who stays in the village without counting. The bet was that if he wins, the shepherd was to part with one of his goats. While the shepherd was wondering how would this be possible, our friend took out his laptop, connected to the net using bluetooth technology, got to know the total number of livestock in the country, that particular state, district, village and then the exact number owned by his friend. He closed his laptop and declared that his friend owned 32 goats and being so sure of his victory said that he has already taken the goat that was promised to him and put it in his car. Hearing this the shepherd started laughing aloud. When asked for the reason for his laughter, he said that the number of goats owned by him was indeed 32 but the goat taken as trophy was in fact not a goat but a dog. The moral is that however ‘knowledgeable’ one is, he should not be blind to local realities and common knowledge.


The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) has been constituted at a specific point of time, with specific objectives due to the existing realities. The aam admi’s decree through the Verdict 2004 is loud and clear. This message has again reverberated in the 2006 election results: cater to the socio-economic needs of the poor and middle classes of the society or get ready to be shown the door. All the actions of the government therefore should be guided by this consideration and nothing else. However some of the technocrats in the government are blind to this historic reality because history teaches us to plan our future by understanding the present and drawing lessons from the past. It is true, as the chairman of the NKC, Sam Pitroda says, that “we cannot go back to what it was” but if we “have to think about what it ought to be tomorrow” this is imperative. It is unfortunate that the majority members of the National Knowledge Commission have voted against reservations ignoring the existing socio-economic realities. Is it really unfortunate or is it something expected knowing the profiles, economics and politics of the members? In fact, it is something that is expected.


In the words of our prime minister, to "leapfrog in the race for social and economic development" by establishing a knowledge-oriented paradigm of development, the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) was established on June 13, 2005 and given a timeframe of three years from October 2, 2005 to achieve its objectives. The prime minister stated that the agenda of the commission will be shaped by a knowledge pentagon with five areas of action, “to increase access to knowledge for public benefit, develop new concepts of higher education, rejuvenate science and technology institutions, enable application of knowledge by industry to enhance manufacturing competitiveness and encourage intensive use of knowledge-based services by the government to empower citizens”. So the concept of ensuring social development and ‘increasing the access to knowledge for public benefit’ are some of the important functions of the Commission. The stand taken by the majority members of the Commission on the issue of reservations is quite contradictory to these two objectives.

The demographic advantage of having more than 54 per cent of our population in the below 25 years age group would be lost unless these human resources are tapped for national development. This can be achieved only by ensuring to the majority of our population access to the best of our knowledge building avenues. Unfortunately, majority of our population is poor, marginalised and deprived in economic terms. To identify them in sociological terms they belong to the dalit (16.23 per cent), adivasi (8.3 per cent) and other backward castes (little more than 52 per cent). Thus if the ‘majority’ of the Commission members are serious of their task, they should think of empowering them instead of taking a stand against reservations.


Expressing their opposition to the government's proposal of reservations to the OBCs, the majority has stated “How we go about doing this in a way that is compatible with the goals of a knowledge society is a difficult task and requires more social debate and careful thought.” With the above statement they have subtly stated that reservations are not ‘compatible to knowledge society’. Through this they cast aspersions on the achievements of the dalit, adivasi and other backward caste communities so far as also on their potential. This demonstrates not only their ignorance of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment but also of the Indian realities. More so when their objectives state affirmative action as "a cogent government policy on eliminating discrimination and widening access in education and employment”. It also clearly accepts: “So far efforts in this direction have been fragmented, compelling the judiciary to step in and make decisions that do not always sit well with government policy and public opinion”.

RESERVATIONS AND QUALITY

The issue that quality does not get affected by providing reservations has been discussed earlier in these columns. As the majority of the Knowledge Commission members raised this issue, it needs to be reiterated. All the premier institutes while calling for applicants prescribe a minimum level of qualifying marks necessary for appearing for the entrance examination. In the case of IIT it is 60 per cent. This is not decided randomly but with a scientific understanding that the students with this threshold level of knowledge would be able to cope up with the rigours of the course work prescribed in that institute. Likewise the exemption of a maximum of 5 per cent of the marks offered to the SCs and STs has been decided with the same rational understanding. The students are admitted in these institutes only after clearing these initial hurdles.

The course work in these institutes is known for its scientific design and the methodology adopted in teaching is also modern. Every class, and this includes even a class constituted without taking into consideration reservations, has in it a top-ranking student and also one at the bottom. A preliminary rule in teaching is that one should not teach only to the top one/few or the bottom one/few, but to the class in its entirety. So, it is this scientifically moulded system that ensures quality and not the caste of the student. Moreover, there is no exemption or consideration shown to any student on the basis of his or her caste at the passing out examination. All the students are expected to clear the exam, which is again scientifically designed to ensure top class quality for the award of degree.

Here some bring the argument of coping with the stress of the course. Leading from the above argument stress is not caste specific but student specific and it is the concern of the education system to reduce the stress. A recent report in the Hindustan Times talks of a suicide of an IIT Kanpur student. He is not from the castes that ‘enjoy’ reservation but is from the forward caste. The above quoted report states low grades and the failure to cope up with the stress as the reason for the suicide. Shall we infer from this that students from that particular forward caste cannot cope with the stress of IIT course and thus be advised not to enter? That would be ridiculous to state the least. The cases of students from the dalit and adivasi communities too should be viewed in the same way. Hundreds of students are committing suicides at the pass out stages of 10th and +2 examinations. It is the failure of the education system, the increasing stress on getting a ‘good’ result, depleting opportunities of higher education and employment that are leading them to commit suicide and not the caste into which they are born.

That these arguments against reservation in the name of stress and quality are emanating from some of the members of the Knowledge Commission, in spite of their assertion that they are for ‘social inclusion’, is really sad for the country. This reminds one of the obsession Hitler had about the superiority of the Aryan race and responsibility for the progress of civilisation and nation. Hitler argued that all other races were inferior and associated them with the decay in civilisations. He further argued that all the inferior races should provide with physical labour subjugated and put under the command of the Aryans. (Hitler Mein Kampf) The argument that SCs, STs and OBCs are not fit for premier institutes but can be allowed in other institutes appears to hinge somewhere to the argument made by Hitler and other fascist forces. At least Hitler was more explicit.

All those who are expressing concern about the quality of education are not so much concerned with the vacant teaching faculty posts in the IITs and IIMs. According to sources, out of a total of 406 posts that exist in the IIT Kanpur only 330 faculty members exist, leaving the rest 76 vacant. This would indeed adversely affect the quality of education more than anything else.

DENIAL OF JUSTICE: FOR WHOM?


Unfortunately the statements against reservations made by the ‘names’ among the majority in the Knowledge Commission and their like are misguiding students. One of the important demands being raised by them in the course of their protests is their ‘right for justice’. They are also saying that they are being ‘denied’ by their ‘own country’. However, they have to understand the Indian reality and look behind the media prisms. Only through this will they understand that in our country there are millions of people who are really denied social justice and economic justice. And added to this, the policies of successive governments at the centre have denied them their just due. Reservations are only one of the means that gave succour to them. While majority of the dalits are landless agricultural labourers, majority of the OBCs are from the artisan class. Out of the 2.8 crore OBC population of Andhra Pradesh, 1.87 crores are engaged in 63 types of activities are artisans. These are the very sections that are hit hard by the neo-liberal economic reforms. We have heard and seen of hundreds of weavers committing suicide in Andhra Pradesh unable to bear the distress under which they were subjected to live because of these neo-liberal policies.

On top of this, their social status heaps more insults and binds them to subjection. In Rajasthan, last year a dalit woman magistrate was removed from her post as she dared to go against the upper caste people of that region. After nearly 59 years of Independence, even today there are many such instances where dalits are not allowed to sit in the front benches in the class rooms, wear new uniform to the school, ride a bicycle to the school (the recent example of police protection provided to a girl in Orissa who rides to her school on a bicycle to save her from the upper caste people's threats) and wear chappals. These are some of the forms of social oppression on students in educational institutes not to speak about those prevailing in the society. The most shameful incidents reported in UP are about teachers refusing to take classes in the schools where majority students are from the dalit families. Thus in our country students are denied access to education not just on economic grounds but also on social grounds. Providing them with reservations is not denying others their due but sharing the fruits equitably.

It is true that 55 years have passed since India was proclaimed as a Republic and its Constitution adopted. Reservations have become part of the Constitutional guarantees to the Indian people because of the social reform movements, the freedom struggle and the aspirations harboured by the people on them. Reservations initially were intended for only 10 years. But so was the case with the achievement of universal literacy rate among the age group of 0-14 years in 10 years. The same is the case with the Act on untouchability passed in 1955. Official statistics prove the prevalence of untouchability and the growing incidence of atrocities against SCs and STs and the State’s inaction in most of the cases.

However, all this should not lead to the conclusion that we abandon all these endeavours because of the failure in achieving the set target, as some seem to suggest in the case of reservations. These people forget that through this argument they are in fact demanding punishment for the people who were deprived of the promised rights instead of making a case against the government. It is not the people but the caged political will of the ruling parties at the centre that is responsible for this non-implementation. Time and again it has been proved that only through popular vigil and pressure would we be able to actualise a right promised to us and this is true even in the case of reservations.

DEBATE NEEDED ON ALL ISSUES

The chairman of the Knowledge Commission in a press conference has stated that the time has come to ‘review all these issues’ and that ‘reservations have to be thought ‘in terms of where we are headed in the 21st century’. ‘Social debate and careful thought’ is necessary on all the issues concerning social life but in this name things cannot be put in abeyance forever. It speaks of bias if we speak of ‘social debate and careful thought’ only on the question of reservations, shunned from all other issues like disinvestments, closure of public sector units, trade and economic policies.

The Knowledge Commission terms this as a ‘historic opportunity to craft more effective policies to make educational institutions more socially inclusive’. If the majority of the Commission is sincere about this they should immediately recommend for the implementation of the land reforms act, protection of the interests of the artisans and small producers. Pitroda himself has promised that the body will not come out with a "voluminous report that gathers dust but give concrete actionable points". This is a good actionable point even for the government as it increases productivity and address their ‘growth’ concerns. Together with this another suggestion should be made to direct the entire government machinery towards a time-bound eradication of social discrimination in our country. The government should take the campaign to the ‘deserving’ people, involve its officials as in the pulse polio campaign and make them lead peoples’ action against discrimination. The government and the judiciary should be asked to be ‘pro-active’ in disposing off the cases dealing with the atrocities on these marginalised sections. These alternate and effective steps will really empower people and then may be we can think of doing away reservations.

One heartening fact is that the chairman of Knowledge Commission has asked for the increase in the number of IITs and IIMs. Of course the mention of private-public partnership is part of the suggestion. The deputy chairman of the Planning Commission immediately joined with the proposal for the establishment of private education companies. All these suggestions are being made in spite of the knowledge that worldwide the experience of expansion in higher education shows it to be possible only through government action. The apathy of the central government towards this is apparent from the fact that it is sitting on the unanimous recommendation of the state legislature of Andhra Pradesh for establishing an IIT in the state, which was passed not once but twice and forwarded to the centre. The offer, together with the promise that the state government will provide land and other infrastructure facilities, fell on deaf ears. The government should immediately start many new educational institutes and thus do its duty for the expansion of education.

The number of applicants to the IIT entrance at the time of its inception and today has increased many times – much more than the seats available to them have increased. The Indian society has not achieved the saturation point vis-à-vis the number of engineers and doctors required to it. In Rajasthan, for example, the number of doctors per thousand population has in fact come down. In 1996-97 there was one doctor per 7418 population while now it is one doctor per 9816. The Indian average for doctors too is not encouraging and stands at 52 doctors per 10,000 population (1998). These statistics prove the fact that we need more and more numbers of professionals to serve the people of our country. So it is towards this end the fight should be directed and not towards getting ourselves divided. The Knowledge Commission has to do its duty by equipping the people with ideas necessary in this fight and never play a divisive role. These are the answers for the Knowledge Commission as one year has already passed and they have only got two more years. Otherwise its whole concept of access to knowledge being “about increasing the reach and opportunities of individuals or groups excluded from mainstream knowledge systems” would be mere empty talk bereft of action.


http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0521/05212006_%20r%20arun%20kum...