Do we really need state-run schools?

What picture comes to your mind when you hear about a Government School?
If you have a kid, where would you send her – a government run school or the private school in your neighbourhood?

Before we look at what the answers look like, let us consider the school structure in India. For this discussion, let us consider three kinds of schools: state-run schools, government-aided private schools and privately managed schools.

Government-run schools are a mess: a study found that on any given day, one out of four teachers in state-run primary schools is absent, and of those present half are not teaching. And this is true for both government and government-aided private schools. If you consider this with the fact that around 85% of Indian children are in government run schools, the future seems grim.

The talk that private education is only for the upper layers of the Indian society is a myth. A survey by George Mason University indicated that even poor parents prefer private schools for their children. Why? The three main reasons that emerge again and again are:

• The private schools are English medium which is a very important factor for 96% of the parents.
• Parents perceive that the private sector provides a better quality of education.
• 75% of the parents said they would choose a private school even if a government school was available.

In a paper published by the Liberty Institute of New Delhi, James Tooley gives an interesting insight. He says that private school students, when unaided by any government funding, showed test scores in reading and math that were twice the levels of students in the government schools or in the government aided private schools. He concluded that the significant difference was in the accountability of teachers towards students. NIIT Technologies, a private company with 4,000 “learning centers,” has trained four million students and helped fuel India’s information technology revolution. And there are many state-run centres that are faring poorly. Clearly, this proves that accreditation or government recognition is not necessary to be successful or effective.

So why are government aided schools not doing as well? Almost everyone believes that no learning happens there. Poor, crumbling infrastructure and lack of competent teachers are another factor. In many villages, the government school doesn’t even have a toilet for girl students. Sometimes, students, especially in the tribal areas, have to walk several kilometers to reach their government school. No wonder the dropout rate is as high as 80% in some cases. In many government schools, there is just one headmaster who acts as the instructor for all subjects. In almost all cases, the school teachers are not paid on time; it is needless to discuss whether their salaries are attractive enough to keep them from looking for other jobs. So, what right does our bureaucrats or politicians have to complain about the mushrooming of private schools if one in each of these villages can help educate the children?

So should we dismantle all government schools? While the arguments mentioned so far may seem to indicate that this is the way to go, it will not be easy to do away with such a large system. Besides, many argue that only government schools are sensitive to social objectives such as raising the enrolment of girls, SC/ST students, and those from lower income groups. Though there are private schools that voluntarily work towards these objectives, it would be unwise for the government to wash its hands off in this area.

So what can we do? In India, state departments of education manage 66% of all primary schools, and local bodies manage only 20%, with the rest managed by tribal social welfare departments, private aided and unaided institutions. It is here where a change could work best. If education is decentralized in India with local bodies having more control, these institutions would be better suited to manage the local needs and preferences. Government can fulfill its social objectives by acting only as a watchdog with at best none or minimum interference. Even for private schools, financial incentives can be provided as a means to entice them to cater to socially and economically weaker sections of the society.

Doing all this would mean that Government gives a serious thought to the amount of money it allocates for education every year in the Union Budget. Currently, the expenditure on education is around 3% of the GDP and if new initiatives are to be successful, this figure needs to go up. In addition to the education cess already levied, the Government should consider raising the fees to government managed colleges of higher education as these centers charge fees that is much below that charged by private parties.

If these measures are taken, and the money meant for education is used to strengthen private parties and local bodies working towards education, the results would be far better than what we have achieved so far by spending on an inefficient model of public education.

Anything but People’s Choice

Are we a true democracy? Are the elected representatives who sit in the lower house of the parliament and state assemblies expected to take actions that are in tune with what the citizens of the country wish?

 

If your answers are ‘yes’, you are living in a different era. If you have been reading your morning papers, you would surely know that President APJ Abdul Kalam Azad is almost out of the race for a second term. And this when there is huge wave of support in his favour. Kalam has always been a popular President. People see him as someone who is progressive and approachable. He is not the typical ribbon-cutting president. May be this is what the political parties don’t like about him. Our corrupt politicians would like a politician to occupy that chair – so that they can carry on with their ‘hawalas’ and reverse discriminations laws without anyone expressing concern.

 

The communists, who have never done anything that seems logical or what seems in the interest of the people, were the first to declare that they will not support Kalam for a second term. They want that the nominee should also be “strongly secular to uphold the secular principles of the Indian state”. Does this mean that our scientist president doesn’t have secular credentials? But then what do you expect from a bunch of regressive leftists. News channels CNN-IBN, IBN7 and IBN-LIVE in association with Loksatta and The Indian Express conducted an online poll to determine the people’s choice for the first citizen of India. The results surprised nobody. See for yourself: 

 

Poll Results data taken from: www.ibnlive.com

Others include Amitabh Bachchan(1.44%), Karan Singh(0.57%), Somnath Chatterjee(3.32%), Pranab Mukherjee(1.32%) and Sushil Kumar Shinde (2.09%)

 

But as always, what people want will matter to not a single political parties and upholding the democratic credentials of this country, they will thrust some pseudo-secular politician on the citizens of India as their 12th President.

 

On the day he moves out of Rashtrapati Bhavan, I will have only these parting words for him:

President Kalam,

You were a great President. For once, we didn’t feel that our president was a weak, old man who had no mind of his own. You were never a dummy head of state but you know what – our leaders want only rubber-stamps.

Thank You Sir for everything!

Guardians of Morality

Remember Pratibha Nathani. For the uninitiated, she had filed a PIL in the Mumbai High Court and had asked for censorship on TV. She was against the adult and violent content shown on TV which she feared would have a wrong impact on young children. This led to an order than directed TV channels not to show such content before 11 pm. Only recently, the AXN channel was banned by the Congress-led Union Government thanks to promos for a show called World’s Sexiest Commercials, which obviously did not go down well with Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi’s information and broadcasting ministry. Interestingly, the promos for the show were aired after 11 pm, which abides by a proposed Bill that allows adult programmes after that time.

So, are we Indians not mature enough to decide what we want to see and not see? Of late, it has become a practice for people to act as moral police for the whole society and now the GoI has joined the party. Before banning AXN or demanding a blanket ban on such channels, Dasmunsi and Nathani should have seen the so-called saas-bahu soaps. What is shown in these sitcoms is far from the story of every household. Imagine one family going through everything from broken relationships, divorce, abortion, extra-marital affairs, amnesia, rape, re-marriage, and finally re-re-marriage. Is this content suitable for minors? The moral police needs to answer this question. Even if one were to watch mythological serials, the IB ministry norms would require a few cuts as these epics will have episodes that show apsaras seducing the rishis. Why cry foul against films like Neal and Nikki when RK banner’s Satyam Shivam Sundaram showcased a semi-nude Zeenat Aman? If the Government is serious about its moral policing, it should go ahead and ban Discovery channel also which shows animals without clothes doing everything that they should not, at least in front of cameras.

Every year, Valentine’s Day celebrations are targeted by the goons of Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal. The party cadre, which could have used its energy and enthusiasm to do some constructive work and rid itself and its families of poverty, goes around threatening couples, vandalizing gift shops and burning greeting cards. This year too the Shiv Sena, fresh from its victory in the municipal elections has threatened to act against the obscenity and immorality that Valentine’s Day symbolizes. Buying cards or flowers may be enough provocation for them to beat you up. After all, when it comes to our culture, there can be no compromises. As I was writing this post, news came in that activists of Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena(BVS), the students’ wing of Shiv Sena, have burnt some 500 cards in Pune. BVS city president said, “Celebration of Valentine’s Day is alien to our culture.” If the Sena were more concerned about the Great Indian Culture, it should have done something about the ‘cultural pollution’ that is seen everyday at Bandstand, Bandra. Are such brazen public displays of affection not against our culture?

But doing so would mean incurring the wrath of the local population. It is often argued that the youth in Mumbai, both married and unmarried, do not find enough privacy in the single room flats they call home. Hence, the scene at Bandstand, Marine Drive and Bandra Reclamation where it is said that anything and everything goes on.

The moral police seem to believe that our culture which has been surviving and thriving for centuries is so weak that it will get tarnished by a single event. May be it’s time that the younger population takes things in its own hands and give a nice thrashing to these useless activists. Selective targeting of channels and events is tantamount to misuse of power and is against the democratic tenets on which we Indians pride ourselves. But then neither the Sena nor the Congress is known for democracy.

Wish you a Great Valentine’s Day !

_______________________________________________________________

February 14, 2007, Akola, Maharashtra: BVS activists were “forcefully” attempting to get a couple married in Akola when the police intervened and took the activists into custody. The student wing said it was opposed to the idea of celebrating Valentine’s Day as the free expression of love is an attack on Indian culture and leads to obscenity and loss of values. These guys need to see Bandstand immediately.

If out of 365 days of the year, I decide to express my love for someone on this particular day, who the hell are these Sainiks to object? If all these years, Shiv Sena had channelized its energy towards solving the problem of Mumbai’s crumbling infrastructure rather than harassing the youth, Mumbaikars would have been living a much better life.

An Acid Test for the Law

October 5, 2006 Dehradun: A man named Avinash Sharma makes a plan and his accomplice Prem Singh executes it perfectly. The girl’s face gets burnt by the acid thrown on her. Uttarakhand police arrest the two men.

November 13, 2006: As Rangoli Ranaut receives treatment in a Mumbai hospital, the Dehradun court grants bail to Avinash and Prem. Avinash is said to be obsessed with Rangoli and the motive behind the ghastlt attack is supposedly Rangoli’s refusal to marry him.

January 30, 2007 Mumbai: Actress Kangana Ranaut lodges a complaint in the Versova police station after receiving threat calls and SMSes from Avinash. She is told to help him marry Rangoli or face the same consequences as met by her sister.

This incident shows the disadvantages of the reactive nature of our law and order system, especially the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While granting bail to the accused, the Dehradun court did not consider the possibility of Avinash trying to inflict the same pain on some other innocent woman. When the IPC was devised, probably an acid attack was not the preferred modus-operandi of rejected lovers. But in the 21st century, it is common to hear about it all over in India – in small towns as well as large cities. Yet our laws have not kept pace with the crime. The victim often suffers immense psychological trauma besides physical pain. A disfigured face may damage the victim’s self-confidence and self-respect. It may also lead to a case wherein the victim finds it extremely difficult not only to get married but also to work without evoking pity or disdain from those around her. All this while the culprits roam about freely, get little or no punishment as the case drags on for years and feel no remorse for spoiling the life of an individual. The Kangana incident actually shows Avinash using the ‘acid-attack’ as a tool to force people to fall in line. In my opinion, such people should be charged on the following counts: [1] Causing physical and emotional trauma [2] Trying to prevent the victim from leading a normal life and/or even driving her to suicide [3] Using ‘acid-attack’ as a terror tool to get things done.

By granting bail to these people and by delaying conviction (such cases can be decided in two days maximum), the system is actually sending three messages to the citizenry:

1. We cannot protect you.

2. We cannot guarantee this will not happen to your near and dear ones in the future.

3. The culprit’s right to freedom is more important than the victims’ right to lead a life of dignity and self-respect. (That’s why they are so fast in granting bails)

This is the problem in having a reactive law rather than a pro-active one. We cannot take action against a person having mala fide intentions. We must wait till the damage is done. It is true we cannot be pro-active all the time but should we not try to prevent a murder if someone publicly declares his intention to kill? What should be the right punishment for the likes of Avinash and Prem? Some argue it should be nothing less than death (See: Death sentence to acid throwers ) and it’s an option worth looking at. Who needs such psychopaths in a civil society? The pro-active system has its flaws (as in the shooting down of a Brazilian after the London bomb blasts) but the reactive one is perhaps a greater evil.

Boring Actually

Now, I am not the one to write movie reviews on this site but just couldn’t help it this time. Watched Salaam-E-Ishq and was so moved that had to do this.

It is said that this movie is based on a hollywood flick, that is, Richard Curtis’s Love Actually. Its punchline goes “Six Couples, twelve different lives, one common problem – Love”. The problem with this Nikhil Advani directed movie is exactly this. It is not possible to do justice to six stories in three hours when you have lots of songs. But Mr. Advani will have none of this. So, he has made a movie that is three and a half hours long. But even then he fails to do justice to even one of the stories.

Let’s get to the couples now. Isha Koppikar and Sohail Khan play a newly wed ‘always in the mood’ haryanavi couple and Sohail’s body language seems more suited to a C-grade sex flick. Though it makes people laugh, it is not enough to make you remain seated for a long time. Love. No way. Lust Actually!!! John Abraham and Vidya Balan play their parts well and John shines as a loving husband whose wife has an accident and loses her memory as well as her make-up.

One person who would be angry with how his character has shaped up is Salman Khan. The audience never gets to understand whether he is a manager, waiter, or a thug who suddenly appears to help Priyanka Chopra realize her dream of acting in a Karan Johar film. Priyanka Chopra however gets to showcase her flair for comedy. In fact, Johar’s name is mentioned at least 10 times in those torturous three hours and in the end, Priyanka darling chooses Salman over her starry dreams. Love Actually, huh!!!

Govinda gets a lot of footage and does his role well, of a simple cabbie who dreams of settling down with a ‘videshi’ babe. The babe provides for some funny moments with her pronunciation of Hindi but that is all there is to it. Anil Kapoor plays a 40 year old father of two who is tired of his routine life and feels attracted to a pretty young girl, Anjali (played by Anjana Sukhani) who teaches bollywood dance. Wife Juhi chawla is obviously not amused with her hubby’s naughty-at-forty ways and that is all she is there for. Surprisingly, newcomer Anjana has more lines than Juhi. The background tune ‘What’s on your mind’ whenever Anil seems awestruck by Anjana’s beauty is at least music to the ears. Watching a clean-shaven Anil Kapoor in camouflage jackets and cargo pants breakdancing in a club is unfortunately not pleasing to the eyes.

 

Ayesha Takia, who plays Jia, has not much to do. The surprise package is Akshaye Khanna, who as a commitment-phobic young man does everything to effect a break up with Takia once his friend describes our hero as ‘Jia ka Piya’. It does make us laugh and we thank God for such sequences without which there is nothing to feel good about.

Salaam-E-Ishq is all mediocrity, nothing more. It could have been better with such a talented star cast but then again, it’s the screenplay and the direction or the lack of it that has buries this movie. Ask the public who has endured it. Even a one star rating would be generosity.

No Sense of Humour

Is it wrong to dress up like Mahatma Gandhi? No, after all, thousands of children do so during fancy dress competitions in their schools. Is pole-dancing banned? No. Then why is a controversy being created if Bangalore-born and Brooklyn-based standup comedian Gautham Prasad did the two acts together?

Prasad, 29, has worked for the well-known US circus Ringling Brothers and now makes a living as a standup comedian besides teaching yoga. The Gandhi dance has been part of his repertoire for almost three years now. He says the Indian Government’s response is the first negative feedback he has ever received. Explaining the nature of his performance, he says, “I am not making fun of Mahatma Gandhi. I am making fun of a character who is dressed up as the Mahatma and does this dance. I am making fun of myself. Not many people are clowns, so they miss this distinction. If you look at my video you will see I am even wearing a clown’s red rubber nose.”

After this clarification, we should quietly bury this issue. After all, do we seriously believe that a clown can overshadow the real Mahatma or his teachings, or his philosophy? But the Indian Government has never been known for its sense of humour. It has sought a public apology from the News channels IBN7 and Sahara National for beaming the video clip, posted on the popular website youtube.com. It may also try to block youtube completely. The next thing it might do is to initiate a door to door search to find people who crack jokes on the Mahatma.

Considering that there are so many other serious issues for it to ponder over, shouldn’t the Government let the comedians handle the comic ones?

No Bias Here

The media must be thanked for its role in getting justice for Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo. But we Indians are never happy. So, out comes a theory that the media cared for these cases only because they were concerned with the economically powerful middle-class and guaranteed higher TRPs. The theory attempts to drive this point home by further arguing that if the TV channels are so committed to bringing justice to the common people, then why it isn’t highlighting the Khairlanji killings where a dalit family was humiliated before being brutally killed.

In my opinion, this is a shameless attempt by some equally shameless people to negate every good deed done by the media. TRPs may have driven the zeal media showed in pursuing the mockery of justice that the nation witnessed in the cases of Jessica and Priyadarshini but to blame it of bias towards the dalits is being unfair and unreasonable. I had rather say that the dalits have themselves to blame if the rest of the country has not joined them in asking for justice.

I say this not without reason. We all were ashamed when news first broke out on how a teenaged girl, Priyanka Bhotmangte was publicly humiliated, tortured and murdered in the OBC-dominated village of Khairlanji. Jessica’s friends and sister did not go around Delhi breaking windshields and pelting stones. Priyadarshini’s family did not burn trains and buses. But this is exactly what the dalits have done. By damaging public property and causing inconvenience to people who are not to be blamed for the shameful Khairlanji incident, the dalits have actually shot themselves in the foot. The Indian urban class stood up for Jessica, Mattoo and Nitish Katara because it saw them as helpless victims of the system, victims who did no harm to anyone but still faced atrocities at the hands of corrupt policemen and politicians.

It is here where the dalits have taken the wrong step. It is true that they have suffered for long but they cannot get the support of the general population by using arm-twisting tactics and violent protests and bandhs. The media understood that it will not get the public’s support until unless the protests were organized in a civil manner. Why would I volunteer to light candles for a mob that may use the same candles to torch my house? After all, I am neither God nor Gandhi.

Offensive Art and Public Backlash

Recently, the media has carried a number of reports on one of India’s most famous painter, MF Hussein, who is living in a self-imposed exile in London. The media both print and tabloid, has tried to play down Hussein’s controversial paintings that has actually led to Hussein leaving his country. It would like us to believe that Hussein has been wronged by the Hindu fundamentalists because he is a Muslim. But this is far from the truth.

Let us examine some of the recent cases where people’s sentiments have got ‘hurt’ and then I shall present my judgment as to when the public outrage was justified and when it was uncalled for.

The protests and the ban on Aamir Khan’s film ‘Fanaa’ after the actor visited NBA activist Medha Patkar was totally wrong. As a citizen, Aamir was entitled to his opinion and the attempts of Gujrati activists to arm-twist Aamir and force him to toe their line only added another shameful chapter to Gujarat’s recent history.

Next is the protest against James W. Laine’s book on Shivaji that was published in 2003. The Sambhaji Brigade vandalised the Bhandarkar Insititute in the name of restoring the honour of the great Maratha Hero hero and in the process destroyed rare manuscripts like a copy of the Rig-Veda. Shouldn’t these people be punished for hooliganism? They need to understand that Shivaji is not a mythological or religious figure. He was a great ruler who fought against the Mughals and his greatness will not get eroded if a foreigner has an unfavourable opinion about his rule or life. If the brigade can’t understand this, the police machinery needs to ram the truth down its throat.

In the same way, protests in India about ‘The Da Vinci Code’ were totally uncalled for. In fact, in many ways, it was foolish. The movie was a top grosser in Rome, situated next to Vatican City – The home of Catholic Christianity and back home in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, the state government banned it. If the majority of the Christian world can accept it as a work of fiction, what right Indian Catholics have to denounce it or rather not let others to see the movie?

The two incidents where I support the public anger and backlash are

1. Against the movie ‘Fire’

2. Against the nude portraits of Hindu Goddesses painted by MF Hussein

I am not against the lesbian content of ‘Fire’. What was odd in the movie was that the two protagonists were called Sita and Radha – two important and revered names from our Hindu mythology. Surely, the director could have named them Seema and Richa or something else without affecting the story.

The case against MF Hussein is very strong. He has been consistently painting nudes of our Goddesses. Years ago, when he painted Saraswati in the nude, there was a hue and cry. But Hussein didn’t learn his lesson. This time he has painted Bharat Mata in the nude. Clearly, the hindu majority will not tolerate it. The media may call it fundamentalism and argue for an artist’s right of expression, but enough is enough. Why doesn’t Hussein show his creativity by painting something similar to the Danish Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that caused anger among Muslims all over the world?

Moral policing or censorship on somebody’s political beliefs, historical events ( The uproar against a restaurant called Hitler’s Cross in Mumbai), cultural or social events like Valentine’s day is not justified in a civic society. Having said that, nobody should be allowed to show disrespect to other religions and faiths. If you want to express your artistic side, stick to your own religion.

Thirteen on Thirteen

Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on parliament. And the hottest news is that the families of security persons killed during the attacks have returned their gallantry medals to the President. That one of the ministers has declared returning of medals as unconstitutional is the funny side of this story but the situation actually is serious. While all this is a shame for the Central Government, the other interesting piece of news is that Ms. Arundhati Roy, noted author, activist and winner of the Man Booker prize for her novel ‘God of Small Things’ has posed 13 questions to the government. These questions attempt to highlight why and how Afzal has been framed and been made a scapegoat. I found that some of the questions have no basis of at all and instead of campaigning for a clemency for Afzal Guru, she should have spared a thought for those who died defending our symbol of democracy. The interesting point to note here is that Afzal’s brother has accepted that Afzal had links with terrorist organizations and was, in fact, an operative of Hizbul Mujahideen.

Here are the answers for Ms. Roy:

Question 1: For months before the Attack on Parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that Parliament could be attacked. On December 12, 2001, at an informal meeting the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent attack on Parliament. On December 13, Parliament was attacked. Given that there was an ‘improved security drill’, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Answer: Ms. Roy would do well to remember that the terrorists used a car with a VIP pass. But she is right in questioning the slack of security.

Question 2: Within days of the Attack, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. They said the attack was led by a man called ‘Mohammad’ who was also involved in the hijacking of IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the CBI.) None of this was ever proved in the court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Answer: Does this prove that Afzal is not guilty? And if the Special Cell has some insiders who leak information to it, can’t Arundhati understand that such names cannot be disclosed in public or in fact, even in court.

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on Close Circuit TV (CCTV). Congress Party MP Kapil Sibal demanded in Parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. He was supported by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, who said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The Chief Whip of the Congress Party, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, said: ‘I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The close-circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.’ If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Answer: Releasing the recording to public may help terrorists to understand the layout of the parliament complex. Is it that Ms. Roy suspects some MP to be in cahoots with the terrorists? Whatever she may think, this question doesn’t weaken the case against Afzal Guru. If the courts want, the honourable judges can see the footage and decide.

Question 4: Why was Parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Answer: Good question. Ask the MPs. Parliament sessions are often adjourned, in fact, on a daily basis for one tamasha or the other. The public of India wants justice, not answers to such stupid questions.

Question 5: A few days after December 13 attacks, the government declared that it had ‘incontrovertible evidence’ of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half-a-million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s ‘confession’, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the Supreme Court), what was the ‘incontrovertible evidence’?

Answer: But how does this concern Afzal? Is she arguing for Afzal or the Pakistan Government?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 Attack?

Answer: Same answer as above. Military mobilisation can happen for a number of reasons. How does it prove Afzal’s innocence? In fact, Afzal himself has confessed that he aided the terrorist mastermind. Isn’t that ground enough? Are we going to go soft on those who provide logistic support to terrorists?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages, and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Answer: Has she tried to find out how have the families of those killed in the attacks have managed to make ends meet? What financial difficulties they encounter? Take a look the other bomb blasts like the 2005 Delhi blasts and the 2006 Mumbai serial blasts. Is she aware of the loss of life and property? How much has that cost the Indian Government?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. How did the police reach Mohammad Afzal? The Special Cell says SAR Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar Police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the 13 December Attack?

Answer: Good question. But the police may have had a tip off. This angle can be investigated but doesn’t prove Afzal’s innocence. The police may have nabbed him on the basis of some other evidence. This question has merits but this the way police works all over the world. They don’t and cannot start from scratch. All evidence doesn’t come from the scene of the crime.

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the Special Task Force (STF) of Jammu & Kashmir Police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Answer: He was in regular contact but he wasn’t behind bars. He may have had contacts with his friends in these terrorist camps. Surely, the STF was not keeping an eye on them all throughout the 24 hours. Or were they? If yes, then they should be charged alongside Afzal.

Question 10: Is it plausible that organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Answer: JeM or LeT would know the answer to this. Afzal may have working as a mole even after surrendering. And let’s not forget that he provided only logistic support. Since he wasn’t the mastermind, he may not have known all the intricate details. But he is a terrorist nevertheless, right? Keeping contacts with a terrorist is an unlawful activity. I hope Ms. Roy would agree.

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to ‘Mohammed’ and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Answer: He may have escaped. Our police and military don’t have intelligence on each and every person involved in anti-India activities.

Question 12: On 19 December 2001, six days after the Parliament Attack, Police Commissioner, Thane (Maharashtra), S.M. Shangari identified one of the attackers killed in the Parliament Attack as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000, and immediately handed over to the J&K Police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If Police Commissioner Shangari was right, how did Mohammad Yasin, a man in the custody of the J&K Police, end up participating in the Parliament Attack? If he was wrong, where is Mohammad Yasin now?

Answer: The J&K police needs to answer this. And that too, if Mr. Shagari is 100% sure of his claims. As for the whereabouts of Md. Yasin, the earlier answer applies. Or better still, ask Afzal.

Question 13: Why is it that we still don’t know who the five dead ‘terrorists’ killed in the Parliament Attack are?

Answer: This is the funniest of all. Seems Arundhati had saved the best for the last. Do we have a database for all terrorists? So many terrorists are recruited for anti-India operations everyday. It’s possible that many of those who took part in the Parliament attack where there in such an operation for the first time(and last as well). How will we know their names and address when then are dead? Surely, their parent terrorist camps won’t give such details to our Intelligence agencies.

I guess Afzal supporters should first decide whose side they are on. Talking about justice and human rights is alright but one should remember that a cold-blooded terrorist is not human and therefore has no human rights. And as far as justice is concerned, how about giving it to those who lost their lives for their motherland.

From Bad to Worse

Shibu Soren is the first MP to be held guilty of murder and to be sentenced to life imprisonment. While the conviction has reinforced the common man’s belief in the system, it also has once again brought to the forefront the question of criminalization of politics. Even if one leaves Guruji, as Soren is known among his followers, aside, there are many others who have cases pending against them. Two years ago, a study by an independent watchdog had said that almost a quarter of the over 540 people elected to the Indian Parliament in 2004 faced criminal charges ranging from murder, extortion and rape. (Source: ANI)

I have always been unable to understand why do our universities need elections or a Student Union for that matter? I did my engineering from a private institution, a deemed university under the UGC act, and we did not have any union. For all our issues and concerns, we used to approach the dean or the warden. Needless to say, sometimes the concerns were addressed and sometimes we were overlooked. But never did we feel the need for a student union. I wonder then why students of our universities are so interested in student politics. Some days back, a teacher was murdered by activists of a student union in MP. In Maharashtra, a professor’s face was blackened on the charge of molestation though there was no evidence to prove the charge. In most of these cases, students wing of political parties are involved.

The Lyngdoh Committee, a six-member committee headed by former Chief Election Commissioner, J.M. Lyngdoh, was constituted on the direction of the Supreme Court in December 2005 to study various aspects of student union elections. The committee examined aspects like the criminalization of student politics, financial transparency, eligibility criteria for students and standards of academic performance and one of its key recommendations was that political parties should have no roles to play in the university and college campus. The committee has recommended a check on the money being pumped into the elections and says students older than 26 years should not be allowed to contest elections and those studying to get a third degree irrespective of the age should also be barred. Despite these recommendations, the UP government has decided to go in the opposite direction. It has strengthened the hands of prospective goons in university campuses by giving gunners to many university students. For those who love numbers – in Lucknow University alone, there are as many as 80 students with a criminal background. With elections in UP round the corner, the region is abuzz with rumours that Mulayam’s Samajwadi Party may offer a ticket to gangster Abu Salem, who is accused of playing a critical role in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts.

If criminals are to be kept away from public life and politics, it has to be done not only at the centre but right from the state-politics level. Our MPs are not happy with the interference of judiciary in legislative matters but the fact remains that the legislators have let the nation down and it is up to the judiciary to clean up the system. They may not like this judicial activism but the people are all for it.

Unfortunately, the political parties will again turn a blind eye to all this. After all, it serves their interest to scare the common man using the muscle of the criminal activists. And the quality of education and students will go from bad to worse as it has happened in the case of our elected representatives.