To Download Click Here.

Date:08-08-17

Where Javadekar errs

Research must be promoted for both teachers and students from college level itself

Lalit Kumar

Union HRD minister Prakash Javadekar has announced, at a higher education conference, that research would soon be optional for college teachers. This announcement threatens to blow the culture of research and teaching in India to smithereens.

It is well known that research both in colleges and universities is already in a shambles. The existing mandatory research clause for promotion of college and university teachers has contributed only to the mushrooming of dubious academic journals and overnight publishing houses. As academics were left with the option of ‘publish or perish’, many came up with the solution of ‘pay and publish’.The goddess of fortune smiled on sycophants with little academic credentials, and those allergic to libraries and books got enough publications to become professors, principals and vice-chancellors. Consequently, research increasingly became a term of abuse and the international rankings of our universities dipped further.

The solution to this academic malady does not lie in separating research from teaching at the undergraduate level and reducing it to a matter of choice, but in putting into place certain regulatory and quality control mechanisms. UGC approved list of journals is one such recent step towards weeding out the spurious publications.A good starting point to initiate, nurture and improve the culture of research in colleges both for faculty and students would be to ask some fundamental questions, such as, what are the objectives of research; how does good research contribute to class room teaching? Until we answer these rudimentary questions, we cannot appreciate the invaluable role that research plays in teaching and thus see it as an added frill, a tendency exemplified in the minister’s recent announcement.

To illustrate the inextricable relation between research and classroom teaching, my experience of teaching Homer’s Iliad in a Delhi University college can serve as an example. The Iliad was supposedly composed in the 8th century BC when Greeks reinvented alphabet, forgotten a couple of centuries ago. Prior to this, the songs of Homer’s tour de force were circulated orally. To grasp the overwhelming phenomenon of transition from orality to writing, and its outcome on any culture, i read a wide range of books such as Milman Parry’s The Making of Homeric Verse, Walter J Ong’s Orality and Literacy, and various others during my doctoral research on Maithili print culture at Delhi University’s English department. I was able to help students appreciate what appeared merely redundant and repetitive in Homer as essential components of an oral culture.

If thoughtful research will not be incentivised and linked to promotion and adequate salary increment, the day is not far off when a teacher will no longer be able to come up with probing answers to the simplest of questions. The aim of education in general and research in particular is to cultivate a spirit of enquiry in students, to enable them to ask pertinent and uncomfortable questions related to their discipline, society, identity and nation.Good research offers a solution to a problem, an answer to a good question and contributes to our knowledge of the world. As liberal spaces, universities and colleges must inculcate the spirit of questioning in young minds, and the job of good teachers-cum-researchers should be to provide gratifying answers.

The culture of enquiry, the ability to frame questions, cannot develop overnight once a student leaves college and joins the university. If we will not orient our students towards research and original ideas during graduate and post-graduate levels and suddenly exhort them to come up with new ideas and perspectives for their MPhil and PhD, they are bound to fail miserably.The need of the hour, therefore, is to promote research both for students and teachers from the college level itself so as to orient them gradually towards knowledge production. In the absence of orientation to research and enquiry, we may well just have netizens keen to imitate and reproduce without creative and critical impulses. And, who will care about quest for knowledge and speaking truth to power then?

Date:08-08-17

Junk today’s secularism

India needs a reinvented secularism 2.0 rooted in separation of religion and state

Bhanu Dhamija

India’s ambitious experiment with freedom of religion has failed. Our insipid brand of secularism, based on states’ active engagement amid stated religious neutrality, has led to the appeasement of a few, but empowers none and brings injustice for all. Instead of uniting our society, it has fomented fragmentation and alienation among our diverse religious communities.The Hindu majority has now risen against years of over-accommodation of the Muslim minority. This puts the country at risk of losing its tolerant and pluralistic democracy. India today desperately needs a new definition of secularism, one based on freedom of religion, equality before law, and separation of religion and state.

All of these requirements are essential for secularism to work in any country. Indian secularism fails because it allows governments to grant religious freedoms, but not to treat religions equally. The biggest failure in this regard began in the early years of the republic, when the government codified Hindu social customs into law but allowed Muslims to continue practising Sharia law. For seven decades, the requirement of a uniform civil code has remained a Directive Principle in India’s Constitution.

This lack of separation of religion and state has eaten away at India’s religious amity. Governments engage in all sorts of religious activities and play favourites. They own and operate places of worship, fund religious schools, grant tax exemptions to religious outfits, award them government contracts, allot them public lands, and take people on religious pilgrimages. Both central and state governments are engaged in this free-for-all because the Constitution places “religious institutions” in the Concurrent List.

Many of India’s founding fathers opposed such government involvement. They wanted to place separation of religion and state provisions in the Constitution, but were ignored. HV Kamath suggested in the Constituent Assembly that a clause be added, stating, “The State shall not establish, endow, or patronise any particular religion.” KT Shah wanted to add that “the State in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion.” But BR Ambedkar refused their amendments outright, saying he had “nothing to add”. When Kamath objected to being so summarily rejected the Speaker responded “we cannot compel Dr Ambedkar to give reasons.”Without constitutional restrictions on state sponsorship of religious activities, Indian secularism turned into a carte blanche for governments to do as they pleased. They began exploiting religious communities with special treatment, sops and populist slogans.

Nehru saw secularism as a tool for bringing about socialism. The word “secular”, he wrote in a 1952 letter to Congress chief ministers, meant more than the “free play of all religions … [and] conveys the idea of social and political equality. Thus a caste-ridden society is not properly secular.” Granville Austin, famous chronicler of India’s Constitution, wrote, “Nehru’s inclusive definitions of ‘communalism’, and of ‘secularism’ as its remedy, were widely shared, which made their semantic trap all the more insidious. They created more difficulties than they resolved.”Today, the Modi wave among the Hindu majority has shattered the Nehruvian concept of secularism. And for good reasons; Nehru’s approach was impractical in its denial of all communal identities, and it was open to abuse by governments. Now the majority is flexing its muscle and taking revenge for years of minority appeasement. This makes it all the more necessary that India adopt real secularism, lest the pendulum swing too far, and allow Hindu chauvinism to take over India’s democracy.

But this time we must adopt genuine secularism, with all three essential ingredients: freedom, equality and separation. Freedom of religion is already enshrined in India’s Constitution. Work is needed on the other two, and they must be enacted through legislation.For religious equality before law, we must pass a uniform civil code. India can make progress by persuading the Muslim minority in two ways. First, ensure that all government benefits (subsidies, aid, welfare, etc) are distributed under uniform rules. For example, subsidised ration is made available to each household on the basis of one husband/ one wife.

Second, repeal all religious privileges granted under the Criminal Procedures Code of the country. This would ensure that states’ police powers and assistance are applied on a uniform basis. So if a Muslim woman seeks assistance in a divorce, she is treated the same as a woman from any other community.As for the separation of religion and state, India should pass a constitutional amendment along the lines of the First Amendment of the US Constitution: that Parliament “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Any attempt by the Hindu majority to say that separation of religion and state is not needed because their religion is secular by nature, is disingenuous. And even if that were true, the community would have nothing to lose or fear if the law of the land reaffirms its secular credentials. If Hindutva is Bhartiyata and is inclusive and plural, as they say, then let it be expressed in statute.Religion is surely a personal matter, in which politicians, legislators, and bureaucrats do not belong. Our current variety of insipid secularism has only led to abuse by our politicians, violence on our streets, and mischief in our courts. It is time for India to join the league of great nations, and adopt true secularism.

Date:08-08-17

हामिद अंसारी की हिदायत में हिंदुस्तानी अस्तित्व की हिफाजत

संपादकीय

Date:08-08-17

नरेंद्र मोदी के नेतृत्व वाली मौजूदा केंद्र सरकार में नीतिगत मोर्चे पर एक अहम बदलाव आकार ले रहा है और वह यह है कि पिछले कुछ दशकों में भारतीय नीति-निर्माण प्रतिष्ठान पर विदेशी खासकर आंग्ल-अमेरिकन प्रभाव की जो रंगत चढ़ी थी, वह अब उतरती जा रही है। रघुराम राजन पहले ही विदा ले चुके हैं। अब अरविंद पानगड़िया भी समय से पहले अपना पद छोड़ने का एलान कर चुके हैं। वहीं लुटियन दिल्ली की अफवाहों की मानें तो आगे ऐसे और भी इस्तीफे हो सकते हैं। ऐसे में हमें शायद उनकी जगह पर ऐसे विशेषज्ञों की तैनाती देखने को मिल सकती है जो भारत की जमीनी हकीकत को कहीं बेहतर तरीके से समझते हों और जिनकी प्रतिबद्धता कार्यकाल पूरा होने तक टिककर काम करने की हो और जो बीच राह में जिम्मेदारियों को अधर में छोड़कर न चलते बनें। हालांकि 1991 के उदारीकरण के बाद देश में ‘विदेशी’ उत्पादों को लेकर भले ही रोमांच कुछ घटा हो, लेकिन मैकालेवादी मानसिकता से ग्रस्त नीति निर्माण प्रतिष्ठान को इस ग्रंथि से छुटकारा दिलाने में काफी लंबा वक्त लगा। इस बीच एक ऐसा शातिराना दुष्चक्र भरा दौर रहा है जिसमें घरेलू अकादमिक हलकों से निकले विशेषज्ञों को कमतर माना और उन्हें सरकार में उच्च पदों के योग्य नहीं समझा गया। इस दौरान ‘आयातित विशेषज्ञों’ की नियमित तौर पर आवक होती रही। इससे जुड़ी एक और समस्या अक्सर नजर आई कि देश में नीतियां बनाते हुए भी उन पर अंतरराष्ट्रीय मुद्रा कोष यानी आइएमएफ और विश्व बैंक जैसे बहुस्तरीय संस्थानों या उन विश्वविद्यालयों का ही असर देखने को मिलता है जिनके प्रति उनकी अगाध श्रद्धा होती है। उनकी नीतिगत सलाह भी अमूमन सैद्धांतिक ज्यादा होती हैं जिनका भारत की धरातलीय वास्तविकता से दूर-दूर तक कोई वास्ता नहीं होता। वहीं भारतीय तंत्र के भीतर भी ऐसे नीतिगत सलाहकार लगातार उपेक्षित महसूस करते हैं। परिणामस्वरूप वे समय से पहले ही पद छोड़ देते हैं। पश्चिमी विचारधारा का प्रभाव भी खासा घातक रहा है।
देश को मार्क्सवादी विचारधारा की नकल करने की भारी कीमत चुकानी पड़ी है जिसे एमएन रॉय और बरास्ता ब्रिटेन उनके जैसे अन्य लोगों ने भारत पर थोपने का काम किया। इसकी वजह से दशकों तक हमारी नीतियां साम्यवादी कल्पनालोक के निरर्थक विचारों, समाजवादी लक्ष्यों, केंद्रीकृत नियोजन और निष्क्रिय नियमन की शिकार रहीं। एक सुसंस्कृत और सदियों पुरानी आध्यात्मिक परंपराओं वाले देश भारत में माक्र्सवादियों ने धार्मिक एवं आध्यात्मिक परंपराओं पर प्रहार करने में भी कोई कोर-कसर नहीं छोड़ी। देश को इसकी भारी कीमत चुकानी पड़ी। नतीजतन विकास रुक गया। निजी उद्यम पस्त पड़ते गए। साथ ही बेहद विस्तारित सरकारी ढांचे की छत्रछाया में ऐसा भ्रष्ट तंत्र विकसित हुआ जो गरीब हितों की बारी आने पर हद से हद जुबानी जमाखर्च में अपने कर्तव्यों की इतिश्री मान लेता। इसके एकदम उलट हमारे नेता नि:संदेह ऐसे ‘आयातित विशेषज्ञों’ से प्रभावित होकर उन्हीं नीतियों के प्रति आसक्त रहे जो आमतौर पर ब्रेटनवुड्स की जुड़वा संतानों या अन्य विदेशी संस्थाओं और जानकारों की देन रहीं। विश्व बैंक और आइएमएफ को ही ब्रेटनवुड्स की जुड़वा संतानें कहा जाता है। वर्ष 1991 के बाद यह सिलसिला और ज्यादा बढ़ गया जब आइएमएफ ने मुद्रा अवमूल्यन, राजकोषीय किफायत और निजीकरण के लिए बाध्य कर दिया भले ही तब ये सभी पहलू व्यावहारिक न लग रहे हों। कुछ लोग जो शायद भूल जाते हों कि ब्रेटनवुड्स के अंधानुकरण के कितने घातक नतीजे हो सकते हैं, वे जरा नब्बे के दशक के अंत में एशियाई वित्तीय संकट को याद करें। उसमें इंडोनेशिया, थाईलैंड और कोरिया में जनकल्याण के मोर्चे पर हुए नुकसान की कल्पना भी नहीं की जा सकती, क्योंकि उनकी सरकारों ने आइएमएफ के दबाव के आगे घुटने टेक दिए और नीतियों के मोर्चे पर पूरी तरह मात खा गए। केवल मलेशिया ही कुछ हद तक प्रतिरोध कर पाया और अपनी स्थिर विनिमय दरों को बरकरार रखते हुए एशियाई संकट से उपजी वित्तीय सुनामी में किसी तरह खुद को कुछ महफूज रखने में सफल हो पाया

चीन हमेशा ब्रेटनवुड्स संस्थानों के वैश्विक अनुभवों को बेहद गौर से सुनता है, लेकिन वह अपनी जमीनी हकीकत और लक्ष्यों को ध्यान में रखकर ही सावधानीपूर्वक नीतियां बनाता है। हाल में पश्चिम-परस्त नीति विशेषज्ञों ने भारत में रीगन-थैचर शैली वाली ‘न्यूनतम सरकार’ की अवधारणा थोपने की कोशिशें की हैं। असल में यह निजीकरण का सैद्धांतिक नाम है जिसमें सरकार का अधिकांश काम निजी क्षेत्र द्वारा आउटसोर्स के जरिये होता है। वर्ष 2008 में आई वैश्विक आर्थिक मंदी इस सिद्धांत की नाकामी का जीता-जागता सुबूत है जिसने अमेरिका और बाद में यूरोप के वित्तीय तंत्र को तकरीबन लुंज-पुंज ही कर दिया। इस नाकामी के बाद भी शासन के इस सिद्धांत की हिमायत समझ से परे है। रीगन-थैचर सिद्धांत का मर्म यही है कि भारतीय राज्य यानी सरकार अपने नागरिकों को कानून-व्यवस्था, प्राथमिक शिक्षा एवं स्वास्थ्य, बुनियादी ढांचा और पेयजल जैसी मूलभूत सुविधाएं देने में भी अक्षम है। ऐसे में इन सभी सेवाओं का जिम्मा निजी क्षेत्र के सुपुर्द कर देना चाहिए।

यानी जो इनका खर्च उठाने में सक्षम हैं, वे इनका अपने स्तर पर बंदोबस्त करें। इस मॉडल में तमाम खामियां हैं। यह विषमता बढ़ाने वाला है, क्योंकि इससे जरूरी सेवाओं के लिए गरीबों का वाजिब हक मारे जाने की आशंका काफी बलवती हो जाएगी। इससे भी बदतर बात है कि अभी भी यह बेलगाम आउटसोर्सिंग राज्य को ही ‘शोषक संस्था’ बनाने पर आमादा है जिसमें सार्वजनिक कल्याण की कीमत पर ‘लूटपाट’ को बढ़ावा देने की कोशिश जारी है। राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा के साथ समझौते का भी सवाल है। भारत अभी विकास के जिस पड़ाव पर है, उसके लिए रीगन-थैचर-आइएमएफ मॉडल उपयुक्त नहीं है। भारत को प्रभावी प्रदर्शन करने वाली ‘विकासोन्मुखी सरकार’ की दरकार है जो अपनी जनता के लिए प्राथमिक शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य और पोषण जैसी सामाजिक आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने के साथ ही अपने उद्यमों के लिए कानून-व्यवस्था, बुनियादी ढांचा भी मुहैया कराए ताकि वे वैश्विक स्तर पर प्रतिस्पर्धी बन सकें।

मौजूदा सरकार क्रमबद्ध रूप से विकासशील राज्य की छवि बनाने की अनथक कोशिशों में जुटी है। जब यह रणनीति कारगर होगी तो भारत की वृद्धि को ऐसी निर्णायक दिशा देगी जिसमें वह स्थाई रूप से ऊंची वृद्धि के चक्र में दाखिल हो जाएगा। द इकॉनमिस्ट और द वॉल स्ट्रीट जर्नल जैसे पश्चिमी पत्र-पत्रिकाएं मोदी सरकार द्वारा किए गए ढांचागत सुधारों से सुशासन की ओर बढ़ते कदमों की थाह लेने में नाकाम रहे हैं। यहां तक कि सब्सिडी के प्रत्यक्ष भुगतान जिसमें रकम सीधे लाभार्थी के बैंक खाते में जा रही है, उसे भी दिखावटी सुधार बता रहे हैं। खास मंशा से की गई ऐसी आलोचना पर ध्यान दिए बिना सरकार को अपने लक्ष्य पर सफर जारी रखना चाहिए। इस लिहाज से रीगन-थैचर परंपरा वाले विदेशी विशेषज्ञों की अभी कोई जरूरत नहीं है। वैश्विक उत्पादन तंत्र, विश्व बाजार और वित्तीय एवं तकनीकी प्रवाह से अपनी अर्थव्यवस्था को सफलतापूर्वक जोड़ने के लिए विकासशील राज्य बनना भारत के लिए जरूरी शर्त होगी। यह एकीकरण हमें अपनी शर्तों और भारत की जटिल जमीनी हकीकत को ध्यान में रखकर करना होगा।

Date:07-08-17

A patchy green

Draft national energy policy falls short of striking a sustainable balance, or clarifying lines of accountability

Vikram S Mehta  The writer is chairman and senior fellow, Brookings India

Arvind Panagariya did not list the “draft national energy policy”, prepared by the Niti Aayog and circulated for comment on June 27, as one of the important achievements of his tenure as Deputy Chairman in the various interviews that I read, on the day he announced his resignation. Perhaps, because the document is still in draft form; perhaps, he did not have a major hand in its preparation. Whatever the reason, I am sure he will wonder whether, once finalised, this document will indeed catalyse change or suffer the same dusty fate that befell an earlier effort to develop an integrated energy policy by the erstwhile Planning Commission.

My own sense is that if the final version is little different from the draft that has been circulated, it will soon be shifted to the archives. For, while like so many other reports, it encapsulates well the problems and the solutions, it ducks the modus operandi for implementation. It does not define roles, responsibilities and accountabilities. It does not provide a timeline for delivery and there is no discussion on financing.

The authors might argue that their purpose was to define the issues, elucidate the preferred vision and recommend the policy required to realise this vision. It is now for the executive to put actionable flesh around these recommendations. If, indeed, this is their argument, then I would retort that our “energy problem” is existential in severity; that we do not have the luxury to define now and act later and that if, as the government’s think tank, Niti Aayog wishes to make a difference, it should extend its mandate unilaterally and map each of its policy recommendations against existing institutions of governance, and where there are mismatches or misalignment, offer suggestions for plugging the institutional lacunae.

The recommendations in the draft report are not new. They have been made before. This does not mean the report contains nothing or little of value or interest. On the contrary, it is good that one more government document has emphasised the importance of pegging India’s energy policy on the following three essential verities.

One, India’s per capita energy consumption may be a fraction of the per capita energy consumption of the developed world and, indeed also that of China, but it will be among the most severely impacted by global warming. It should demand “differentiated responsibility” from the international community in managing and mitigating the existential risk arising from this development. But, in parallel, it must push its economy on to a low carbon growth trajectory. Two, its energy policy must, in consequence, focus on increasing the share of renewables (solar, wind, bio) in the energy basket and on greening fossil fuels (oil and coal). And three, it must leverage technology and innovation to render renewables affordable and accessible.

The report has modelled alternative energy futures based on differing assumptions regarding economic growth, energy demand and supply etc but they all converge to the same conclusion. India must fast-track the implementation of a green energy agenda. The problem with the report lies elsewhere.

First, the “something for everybody” narrative dilutes the centrality of the green message. The report’s vision for 2040 calls for affordable energy, high per capita electricity consumption, access to clean cooking energy, low emissions, security of supply and universal coverage. There is a clean energy thread running through these components. But its recommendation for the policy interventions required to achieve this vision is a patchwork of clean and not-so-clean initiatives. That is, managing energy consumption, energy efficiency, production and distribution of coal, electricity generation, transmission and distribution, supply of oil/gas, refining and distribution of oil, and installation, generation and distribution of renewables.

How will the government square the vision of clean energy with the circle of augmenting supplies of unclean fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas)? How will it access clean technologies like carbon capture and sequestration, cellulosic biofuels (so that there is no competition with agriculture) and hydrogen fuel cells, if it does not make a singular effort to counter the systemic bias towards technologies for enhancing hydrocarbons? I am not suggesting that the latter is not important. On the contrary. Coal, oil and gas are the drivers of our economy and we must do our utmost to secure their supplies. What I am suggesting is that a separate system be created to enable the development and distribution of cleaner fuels and that policy interventions be directed to slowly but inexorably enhance the importance of the latter to the diminishing significance of the former.

Second, there is no discussion on the institutions of implementation of the policy. The report suggests that the list of policy to-do’s should be monitored by a committee of secretaries chaired by the CEO of Niti Aayog and the process supervised by a steering committee chaired by the PM and comprising members of the cabinet. This may be a necessary requirement but it will not be sufficient.

Anyone with even a superficial understanding of governance knows there is currently no institutional platform for mediating the complex of vested interests and stakeholders engaged with different aspects of the energy sector. There is a misalignment between the horizontally structured, siloed central ministries and the vertically layered division of responsibilities between the central, state and municipal governments. This is the main reason why it is difficult to translate policy into action. Take, for example, shale oil. To harness these resources, the central Ministry of Petroleum will need to bring the central ministries of water, chemicals and environment, their counterpart state government departments and the landholders around the same table. There is no mechanism for doing so.

My hope is that Niti Aayog will supplement their current report with a second document that will offer suggestions for the creation of such a mechanism and an institutional design that will clarify lines of accountability and authority and balance the needs of development, politics and sustainability.