There is a growing sense of insecurity in the ruling elite that makes it impatient to stamp out differences and deviations from the norm
Residential schools were a common feature of European settler societies (except New Zealand) until quite late in the 20th century, and their purpose was not just to educate but to “deracinate” their aboriginal pupils: That is, to cut them off from their roots. The Chinese Government would reject the analogy with its last breath, but it is now doing the same thing. Last week, in China’s Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, ethnic Mongolian parents began holding rallies and keeping their children home from school in protest against new measures to reduce teaching in the Mongolian language in favour of Chinese. Under the new rules, history, politics, language and literature will be taught in Mandarin Chinese, not in Mongolian.
It has not been reported in the Chinese media, of course, but the BBC reports that students at one demonstration chanted “Our language is Mongolia and our homeland is Mongolia forever!” At another school, only 40 students registered for the autumn term instead of the usual 1,000 — and most of them left after the first day. It should be noted that in Inner Mongolia, ethnic Chinese (Han) people are a four-fifths majority of the 25 million residents. The province is beyond the Great Wall and was once almost entirely Mongolian, but it was already majority Han before the current Chinese Communist regime came to power in 1949.
Most of China’s five million Mongols are concentrated in three eastern districts of Inner Mongolia, but even there they are not a majority of the population — and many of these Mongolian-speakers are urbanised people who are fully bilingual and intermarry freely with their ethnic Chinese neighbours. The core of the unrest is among the million or so who still pursue a modified version of the old “nomadic” culture. They are the traditional Steppe-dwelling people who follow their herds on horseback or in all-terrain vehicles through their seasonal rounds. Unlike aboriginal languages, Mongolian has been written in its own script for many centuries, and Genghis Khan’s empire once briefly ruled about a quarter of the world, but the “nomadic” Mongols do depend on boarding schools.
Such schools are simply a practical necessity for people who live in small groups and move frequently, and in the Chinese case, they were not originally conceived as instruments of cultural genocide. Until recently, in fact, they operated entirely in Mongolian, with Chinese taught as a second language. The Chinese policy towards “tribal” minorities has traditionally been more tolerant than the US or Canadian policy towards native Red Indians, the Australian policy towards Aborigines, the Scandinavian policy towards Sami (Lapps) or the Russian policy towards Siberian native peoples. All of those unlucky people got the kind of residential schools that aimed at cultural assimilation and religious conversion.
The children spent most of the year in boarding schools, not with their families. They were taught the religion of the settlers, not that of their native culture. They were forced to use the language of the dominant European group and forbidden to speak their own. And most of them were subjected to violence. (Yes, most.) Many of the adults who emerged from this ordeal were tormented men and women, and their legacy of alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, nihilism and despair is still being passed down the generations. Nothing of the sort has happened to the Mongols of Inner Mongolia, so far as is known — but something bad is starting to happen to them now. The Chinese culture has always been patronising towards the minorities living within China’s borders, but it didn’t usually see them as threats. They aren’t threats now, either, but there is a growing sense of insecurity in the ruling elite that makes it impatient to stamp out differences and deviations from the norm. You can see it in Tibet, where the screws have been turned so tight on dissent that more than a 100 people have burned themselves to death in protests since 2009. You cannot avoid seeing it in Xinjiang, where more than a million Uyghurs have been sent to concentration camps that operate like residential schools for adults, trying to separate the residents from their religion, language and values.
And you can detect it in a minor key even in Inner Mongolia, in a needless, destabilising attempt to force Mandarin down the throats of loyal, innocent people who pose no threat whatever to the State. What drives President-for-Life Xi Jinping and his advisers to such ridiculous and counter-productive extremes? The only plausible answer is fear that history will repeat itself. China’s rulers are all Communists in theory (though how many still really believe it is another matter), and so they rightly worry that what happened the communist parties of Europe in 1989 could also happen to them. However, two years after that the Soviet Union broke up as well. It’s really unlikely that China will ever do the same, because more than 90 per cent of the population is ethnic Chinese, but the guilty flee where none pursue.
(Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work.’)
Teacher’s Day is a wonderful opportunity for all the students to appreciate the hard work and efforts put in by their gurus
COVID-19 has forced schools and universities across India, and the world, to suspend face-to-face teaching and move to online classes. This transition to online teaching and learning is challenging for most organisations, students and teachers alike as academic institutions across the world have cancelled all on-campus activities that made the experience of learning memorable and meaningful. Hence, celebrating Teachers’ Day this year will not be the same as it used to be in the past. Irrespective of religious beliefs, Teachers’ Day is celebrated across the world, albeit on different days. This is because, no matter what society one belongs to, we all have grown up with the realisation that we must always show respect to the teachers who made us as we are. Right from becoming a good human being to a civilised citizen of the country.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) started observing Teachers’ Day on October 5, 1994 as it commemorates the anniversary of the adoption of the 1966 International Labour Organisation (ILO)-UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers. This recommendation sets benchmarks regarding the rights and responsibilities of teachers and standards for their initial preparation and further education, recruitment, employment, teaching and learning conditions.
However, in India it is celebrated on September 5 to mark the birth anniversary of Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was a teacher par excellence. When he became the President of India in 1962, his students and friends sought permission to celebrate his birthday. However, Dr Radhakrishnan politely requested them to celebrate his birthday as a day dedicated to all the teachers in the country.
The former President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, once said, “Teaching is a very noble profession that shapes the character, calibre and future of an individual. If the people remember me as a good teacher that will be the biggest honour for me.”
A teacher, who may give us a piece of advice and the lessons of a lifetime, is always considered a highly honoured person in every community.
In India, the teacher-student relationship has a special religious and social bond and significance. Since ages, the story of Eklavya has come to define exemplary discipleship. This story is an example of dedication, hard work, obedience and paying the guru his due. This also shows that acquiring or gaining knowledge is not possible without the teachings and blessings of the guru. In ancient times, a common practice in learning was guru-dakshina, where a student would offer a gift or fee for the knowledge gained by him. Actually, Dronacharya blessed Eklavya with immortality by asking him for his thumb because whenever people think of an ideal student and devotion to a teacher, they think of Eklavya and not Arjuna.
A teacher has a very high status and is given a lot of importance in Islam. There is a famous saying of Hazrat Ali in which he said that “if a person teaches me one single word, he has made me his servant for a lifetime.” Teachers always play a prominent role in influencing and inspiring students. In our society, parents are responsible for giving their children quality care. However, teachers are responsible for honing their skills and making their future bright and successful.
They are a source of inspiration to students as they prepare the latter to face any challenge with confidence and commitment. With enormous understanding of the subject matter and with deep knowledge and wisdom, they always nourish the lives of their students.
Keeping the importance of the teacher-student relationship in mind, Tariq Mansoor, who himself is a professor and the Vice-Chancellor of the historic Aligarh Muslim University, says, “Teachers are the backbone of any academic institution and always play a very big role in shaping the lives and careers of students.” This is a fact as our foundational education completely depends on the guidance we get.
Teachers’ Day is a wonderful opportunity for all students to appreciate the hard work and efforts put in by teachers in grooming and shaping their life in a meaningful way. The most difficult and challenging part for a teacher is to balance the class where students come from different economic, social, religious, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. But each one still does it, day after day.
Teaching is one of the most respected and valued professions in the world and an educator continues to be a respected person in society. Let’s remember ours, wherever they are, especially for preparing us to be resilient in these pandemic times.
(The writer is the Chairperson, Department of Linguistics at Aligarh Muslim University.)
Today the educationally best performing nations have no Govt interference in schooling. India needs this, too, if we are to compete globally
Teachers are the fulcrum around which any progressive and vibrant society moves. Look at countries and compare their rate of growth and the scale of teachers’ status in the society; it will be apparent that both go up and down together. India had a great guru-shishya parampara and teachers were highly revered by the students and civil society. Respect for teachers was not ornamental but real in those days. The educators were revered in the true sense as even the king would not take decisions without the consent of the Raj Guru.
Even though the Raj Guru is often depicted as a poor person in popular culture, the king would invariably receive the guru by standing up from his seat. The teacher in turn would often visit the king’s court in moments of crisis to counsel the ruler. Sadly, those days are long gone.
We need to understand today as to why the judgement of teachers was final in the days of yore. To be precise, the objective of the king (or in today’s parlance the politician) is to remain in power. Similarly, the aim of the common people is to be rich or famous or powerful. However, the objective of a teacher is nothing but to see his/her students grow and achieve what they aspire to. This is the only profession where the individual works not for oneself but for other people’s growth and success and derives pleasure in the attainments and achievements of the students whom s/he teaches. However, to expect such dedication we, too, must have complete trust in teachers and grant autonomy in pedagogic activities; as individuals and as a system.
In India, we celebrate Teachers’ Day on the birth anniversary of Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a scholar of philosophy and a great teacher loved by all who had the good fortune to be taught by him. Radhakrishnan taught Indian philosophy and religion at many British and Indian universities. He later joined the freedom struggle, because he believed that to serve a foreign rule was “irreligious” or adharm in the Hindu tradition.
Radhakrishnan pursued his study of Indian philosophy while continuing to make his contribution to the freedom struggle. He was in a relentless search for the ultimate truth, which he believed was the pursuit of every Hindu scholar i.e. Sa Vidya Ya Vimuktaye (attaining salvation through search of the ultimate truth). Radhakrishnan became the Vice-Chancellor of the prestigious Banaras Hindu University on the invitation of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya to succeed him in 1938. It was a position that Radhakrishnan occupied till 1948. Once India became independent, Radhakrishnan became the chairman of the first commission on education to be set up to revamp the higher education system of the country.
The report presented by him is popularly known as the Radhakrishnan Commission Report. It is a comprehensive one but today it is vital to remember that this report stressed on the importance of education being grounded in the Indian tradition. The Radhakrishnan Commission Report was also of the view that school education must be given emphasis and revamped so that deserving students could enter higher education institutions.
This Teachers’ Day has special significance for us all. The Narendra Modi Government issued its New Education Policy 2020 (NEP) on July 29, after a mammoth discussion nationwide for five long years. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), now renamed the Ministry of Education (MoE), had started the discussion in 2015 and people at the grassroots level were consulted through 33 identified areas or themes; and then a committee under TSR Subramanian (a retired bureaucrat) was asked to prepare a draft on the basis of all the documents and feedback that were collected.
However, this report was widely criticised and was largely unacceptable to most stakeholders. So, a new committee was constituted to prepare a fresh draft under the chairmanship of Dr Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, (a space scientist of global repute). The draft report was submitted to the Government on May 31, 2019. The final document, prepared by the Government on the basis of all the data and feedback collected through the two drafts, was released in July. This document is extraordinary in many respects. The previous documents ran into hundreds of pages but this was presented in just 62 pages. Beside other things, the policy focusses on educators, right from pre-school teachers to the ones teaching in universities.
This Teachers’ Day the educators must rejoice at the appearance of the Prime Minister in a conclave of teachers on August 6, only a week after the new national education policy document was released. Talking about the NEP while addressing the conclave, Modi had said, “Today, there are views and opinions coming from all across the India. People are sharing their thoughts on this. It has been widely welcomed and one thing that has been observed is that no one is saying that this policy has any bias towards any one area... that is a great thing. Now everyone’s focus is on how this will be implemented. As far as the political will to implement this is concerned, I want to assure you that I am fully with you... all the way.”
He called upon the educators to own the policy and implement it in letter and spirit. The message conveyed was that the nation has realised that the education policy will have little impact, like all the previous policies, if the educators don’t own it. A policy document on education will have to be owned and implemented by teachers and teachers alone. Plans prepared on the basis of the policy will have to be implemented in the classrooms which teachers alone handle. It is noteworthy that in his speech, the Prime Minister addressed principals who are the key players in transforming schools. If this is not just rhetoric, then we can indeed look forward to a “year of the teachers.” This Teachers’ Day can perhaps then be seen as a landmark one in the history of education in India.
The Mudaliar Commission on school education was constituted as a corollary to Radhakrishnan’s report. This commission suggested the formation of an independent body to coordinate school education among the States of India. This, it said, was necessary because education is a national concern and the major responsibility of maintaining quality and content of school education as well as higher education rests upon the Union Government. The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established on the recommendation of the Dr Radhakrishnan Commission but the School Education Commission (SEC) has not been established till date. We need to get this going.
The best tribute to Dr Radhakrishnan would be to give school teachers an independent statutory body to regulate themselves instead of being monitored by “brown sahebs.” We have been shouting against Macaulay’s policy of controlling teachers and schools because the gurukuls (residential schools of ancient times) and the madrasas were the places which produced the best minds of the nation. However, Macaulay planned and destroyed the indigenous school system.
Today the educationally best performing nations have no Government interference in schooling. India needs this too if we are to compete globally. Modi had also expressed the importance of good quality teachers on several occasions. Hope he gets his policymakers to walk the talk.
(The author is Professor of Education at IGNOU. The views expressed are strictly personal.)
Humankind has identified progress with mastery over nature. It destroyed and subordinated nature at will. COVID-19 is just one manifestation of this horror
One does not quite know what the shape of the world will be after the COVID-19 pandemic is over. The several informed speculations at hand — including the one that it would eventually be like it was — may or may not come true. The only thing that is reasonably certain is that the virus COVID-19 emerged in bats, infected another animal and, through it, humans. By all accounts, the infection among humans began to spread from a market selling live animals in Wuhan, China. It is also widely known that viruses breed and spread in the unbelievably over-crowded and insanitary conditions in which animals are kept there, with some of them — COVID-19, for example — transmuting themselves and becoming capable of infecting humans.
Two things are important to note. First, COVID-19 is not the only virus originating in animals and affecting humans. Other deadly diseases include Ebola, which belongs to the category of filoviruses or thread viruses and includes three sub-types of Ebola viruses and one known as Marburg. Named after Ebola River, which meanders through northern Zaire in Africa, it first emerged in 1976 in 55 villages near the banks. Fruit bats are believed to be its natural carriers. The virus, which spreads through human to human contact, is a killer; the death rate so far has been 88 per cent of those infected. As the disease progresses, persistent fever is followed by a strange combination of haemorrhaging and blood clotting all over the body, especially in the spleen, liver and brain, in what is known as disseminated intravascular coagulation. Death comes from haemorrhaging and shock.
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and West Nile Virus have also originated in animals. SARS coronavirus emerged in China’s Guangdong province in 2002. First identified in 2003, it most probably originated in bats and then spread to other animals like civet cats before infecting humans. There were 8,000 cases of the disease in the 2003 epidemic, which affected 26 countries. Transmitted from person to person, its symptoms are similar to those of influenza — fever, muscle pain, headache, diarrhoea and shivering. Subsequently, there can also be coughing and shortness of breath.
Dromedary or Asian or Arabian camels are a major repository of MERS Coronavirus or MERS-Cov which spreads through human-to-human transmission. Fever, cough, shortness of breath are among its symptoms, as is diarrhoea. Patients often develop pneumonia. Birds, particularly crows, are the natural hosts of West Nile Virus which causes neurological diseases that can be fatal. It is commonly found in Africa, Middle East, North America, Europe and West Asia and spreads though infected mosquitoes biting humans.
Eighty per cent of the people infected by the West Nile Virus do not show any symptoms. About one-fifth of the infected develop fever and headache, body ache, vomiting, diarrhoea and or rash. Less than one per cent of those infected develop illnesses like encephalitis or meningitis involving inflammation of the brain. Apart from the symptoms described above, those seriously ill suffer from stiff neck, tremors, vision loss, numbness and paralysis.
Rabies, originating among other species, in dogs and monkeys, and entirely preventable through vaccination, is perhaps the most talked about of the number of zoonotic diseases affecting humans. The question is, how do these come to infect people? While transmission modes may differ, the basic circumstance is proximity to animals who are “hosts” to the viruses concerned. The nature of this proximity is influenced by the way that most humans regard animals, which is that they can be treated any way people like —they can be killed for fun as in the criminal activity that goes by the name of hunting, for food, savagely hurt in the name of fun —bull fights in Spain, Jallikattu in parts of South India, or cockfights and dogfights in many parts of the world. They are made to pull or carry heavy loads that make them stagger and undergo horrendous suffering in the name of medical experimentation benefiting humans.
Of course, animals are not the only living beings that humans treat horribly. We treat the whole of nature, of which animals are a part, in the most cruel and exploitative manner. The worst victims are plants which are feeling, communicating, mutually caring and benevolent living beings that need to be treated with respect, and forests, which provide a wide range of environmental benefits, including attracting rainfall and preventing soil erosion. They are, however, casually felled in India to make way for industrial enterprises and coalfields when coal, a highly polluting source of energy, is increasingly in disuse everywhere.
Underlying such conduct is not only callousness but sadism, to which animals can be subjected without attracting the kind of condemnation and punishment that similar action towards humans do. True, humans treat other humans too in pretty awful ways. Otherwise, there would not be crimes like slavery and incarceration in concentration camps but murder and genocide. Nevertheless, as often as not, perpetrators of such crimes against humans are punished. Mussolini was shot while on the run; Hitler had to commit suicide. Several German perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity during World War II were brought to justice at the Nuremburg trials. More recently, most perpetrators of war crimes during Bangladesh’s Liberation War in 1971 have been sentenced, a few to death.
No murderer of a tree or the perpetrator of the genocide of a forest has been given similar punishment. This is because trees, forests and the rest of nature, including other non-human living beings, are generally held to be existing for human convenience alone and, hence, have been put outside the universe of morality that people have created for themselves. Thus, while the punishment for killing a human can be death, that of killing an animal is a fine and a laughably short stint in jail.
The attitude towards nature described above has been compounded by the adversarial view of it that emerged during the long struggle for human survival and progress, which included the establishment of human settlements and farms for food, the domestication of animals, use of the latter in wars, controlling of rivers for irrigation and flood-prevention. The result of all this has doubtless been the enormous material progress witnessed from the emergence of the initial tribal communities to the establishment of the complex modern civilisations of the information age. This in turn has led to the identification of progress with mastery over nature. The latter was not the matrix to live in harmony with but to be destroyed and subordinated at will.
What was forgotten in the process was that humankind emerged from the cradle of nature, which included all non-human living beings as well, and has existed in the supportive environment provided by it. Destruction — even severe damage to the latter — could threaten its very existence. The devastating effects of climate change, including extinction of species, and the cyclones and tidal waves that are increasingly playing havoc, are widely known. Now the abominable conditions existing in Wuhan’s live animal market have unleashed the COVID-19 virus on humans. This is unlikely to be the last zoonotic or natural calamity visiting our world. There will be others, and perhaps even more catastrophic, if we do not mend our ways.
(The author is Consulting editor, The Pioneer)
Indian Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane on Friday said that the situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is tense and the force is prepared for all contingencies.
"The nation can count on us," said General Naravane who was on two-day visit to Ladakh where he also met troops deployed at forward locations along the LAC.
"The situation along the LAC is tense. We have undertaken precautionary deployment in some areas. The troops are prepared for all contingencies that may arise. All these actions have been carried out only along the LAC," the Army Chief said.
General Naravane said that he reached Leh on Thursday morning and spent time with the commanders and troops to make a first-hand assessment of the situation along the borders. Indian Army chief returned to Delhi on Friday afternoon.
"It was very satisfying to see our soldiers and local commanders in high morale and good health. It gives me confidence that they are well prepared to safe guard the territorial integrity of our nation," said General Naravane, adding that Indian Army is known for its commitment and resolve.
He pointed out that over the past three months, both India and China have been engaged in resolving the situation.
"Military and diplomatic channels are functioning. The Indian side is firmly committed to resolve the current situation along the LAC through engagement," he said.
General Naravane said that India will continue to utilise all existing mechanisms to reduce tension and to ensure that the status quo is not unilaterally changed.
He went to Ladakh after China made fresh incursion attempts and Indian Army thwarted there acts. Chinese's People Liberation Army (PLA) troops had made fresh incursion attempts in India territories along south of Pangong Tso (Lake) on August 29 and again on August 31.
On August 31, Chinese troops had indulged in provocative actions after Indian soldiers occupied the heights there to thwart a PLA land-grabbing bid over the weekend.
On the intervening night of August 29 and August 30, 2020, PLA troops had violated the previous consensus agreed upon in military and diplomatic engagements during the ongoing standoff in eastern Ladakh and carried out provocative military movements to change the status quo.
Military representatives of both the countries are now engaged in a dialogue to de-escalate tensions.
Indian Defence Minister Rajanth Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe will meet later on Friday to discuss their border disputes.
Both are in Moscow to participate in the joint meeting of the Defence Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries.
Rajnath Singh, accompanied by a delegation including the Defence Secretary and other senior officials, also participated in the 75th anniversary event of 'Victory Day', marking the Soviet Union's triumph in World War II.
Addressing the joint meeting, he said India is committed to the evolution of a global security architecture which will be open, transparent, inclusive, rules-based and anchored in international laws.
He also congratulated Russia for successfully managing the coronavirus pandemic. "We applaud Russian scientists and health workers for spearheading the Sputnik V vaccine. I wish you all health and success in this time of pandemic!" he said.
The minister also appreciated Russia for organising the annual anti-terror exercise "Peace Mission", that has contributed to building trust and sharing of experience among defence forces.
"India values the works of SCO Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure. We laud RATS' recent work in the cyber domain to prevent the spread of extremism. The adoption of anti-terror measures by the SCO Council to counter extremist propaganda and de-radicalisation is a significant decision," he said.
Rajnath Singh told the member countries representatives that there is need of institutional capacity to deal with both traditional and non-traditional threats - above all, terrorism, drug-trafficking and transnational crime.
"As you all are aware, India unequivocally condemns terrorism in all forms and manifestations, and condemns its proponents," he said.
He noted that 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War as well as the formation of the United Nations, which underpins a peaceful world, where international laws and sovereignty of states are respected and states refrain from unilateral aggression on one another.
India's participation in the Victory Parade on June 24 in Moscow was homage from India to the unparalleled contribution of Soviet people to free this world of Fascism, Nazism and their revanchist passion, he said.
"Memory of WWII teaches us of the follies of aggression of one state upon another, which brings destruction to all. Our forefathers, including those from India and former Soviet Union, made supreme sacrifices to resist aggression & expansionism," Singh added.
The West’s response to the Coronavirus shows that we have succumbed to a collective obsession and become a society enraptured by medieval superstitions
Can this really be happening? The British are famously — and proudly — the most difficult people in the world to terrorise or bully. The population that stood with tireless phlegm and humour against relentless bombardment, that made its historical mark with an unflinching rationality which never permits hysteria to sweep the public discourse — must now be chivied into leaving the confines of their own homes or the safe harbours of their immediate neighbourhoods.
And the most perplexing thing of all is that this is the response of most of the Western world. They, who have always stood up for their personal liberties, are now willingly covering at home at the thought of an invisible virus getting them. It is like the Bogeyman of the Middle Ages has been let loose upon the planet and if we don’t hide from it, that will be the end of us. If we look back at history, it seems that over time, society goes from “terror to terror.” Whether the “Red Scare” of communism in the 50s, or the Al Qaeda, immigration, and the Bear market, the Swine Flu and now the Coronavirus.
Where did this come from? Well, on the one hand, it is perfectly clear: With an official Government campaign deliberately designed not only to inculcate fear but to suggest that protection against the great threat of the contagion was simple and clear-cut. And furthermore, obeying the “stay safe, stay home” edict would not just protect you and your immediate family but the rest of society as well. So locking yourself away was a moral obligation as well as an insurance against the personal danger of catching the dreaded Coronavirus. The combination of anxiety and appeal to the conscience of the common man was unbeatable — even when it involved deprivations of liberty which would once have been unconscionable.
So where are we now? Trapped in a state of what appears to be a spiral of fear so profound that it has become a permanent condition. Of course, as everybody has said, the Government’s incoherent messages have something to do with this: One day there is solemn talk of an inevitable “second wave” of the Coronavirus and the next day... well you know the rest.
But the big question on everybody’s minds is how much of this epidemic of national trepidation is pretext? We gather that a great many professionals — particularly those in the service industries on whom the British economy depends — are really quite smugly pleased with their new home-based work arrangements.
They are so relaxed, it seems, that when Government Ministers try to tell them that, actually, they might be putting their jobs at risk by becoming permanent ghost-like unpersons in the workplace, they rise up indignantly — as if refusing to venture into the office was now a right.
In fact, of course, the new Government advice is simply common sense. If an employee can do his job from home indefinitely, so could a floating free-lancer who will be owed no security, no sick leave, no health insurance, pension benefits or parental leave.
All the protections and rights which employees have fought hard to win over the generations will count for nothing once managements discover that most of the functions now carried out by those in formal employment can be done anywhere by people prepared to carry out the same functions on their own premises (and providing the necessary equipment at their own expense).
But surely those clever professionals in their home offices could have come to this conclusion themselves. Anybody who has ever worked in an organisation knows that there is more to a successful career than simply doing the tasks that are required. So why has such a large cohort of the educated population suddenly become so perversely obtuse about what was once a commonplace of adult life?
There has to be something bigger involved in this startling social development which nobody, so far as I recall, foresaw. Nursing my own personal grief over the loss of the cultural landmarks of the year — the concerts and the theatre, the opera and the art exhibitions — it suddenly struck me that virtually all of these events had been hit recently by their own traumatic identity crises.
I found myself thinking aloud: “Western culture has been considering a means of suicide for a while. Maybe it’s finally found it.” In moments of despair it had occurred to me that there was something of a medieval Dark Age about the current mood: Extinction Rebellion with its child saints and the self-flagellating Woke culture.
Being given an apparently sound reason to disable the most notable manifestations of that historical tradition which we are now being encouraged to denounce: What could be better suited to the weird, vaguely hysterical, fashion of the times? Fear may be the most dangerous contagion but I am coming around to the view that this is not simple fear. It is a mass neurosis of which irrational and prolonged anxiety is a symptom. A corrosive loss of confidence and understanding of one’s role and identity which will, if it prevails, ultimately undermine the quality of modern life more irrevocably than any virus.
It is not only our official cultural institutions that are at risk here. One of the most fundamental principles of post-war liberal democracy is on trial or, at least, coming up for examination.
The pandemic has been a moral predicament at least as much as a health crisis. When this whole bizarre chapter is finally over, the questions that needed to be put, but for which there was no time, will be luminously clear. How much should we have asked the general populace to sacrifice in order to protect what we knew, almost from the start, would be a quite small, vulnerable minority?
Is personal liberty — normally of unquestionable value in a democracy during peacetime — expendable when healthcare systems are under sufficient strain? Where exactly do we draw the line on the right of governments to dictate the terms of personal relations?
Perhaps we have learned more than we wished to know about the assumptions that underpin the Government in the modern era. If, for example, we accept that the State should provide healthcare in some more or less comprehensive form, does that mean that it has the right (or even the duty) to ensure that its medical infrastructure is not threatened?
And does that provision oblige the State to put the protection of every individual life above, say, the quality of life of the unaffected majority? Is that the essence of the modern political conscience, and if it is, hadn’t we better discuss it openly? After all, these are our personal liberties at stake.
So there was an odd mix here: On the one hand, the very modern idea that it is the duty of governments to prevent a single life being lost — a notion which the medieval mind with its fatalistic acceptance of mortality would have found absurd — combined with a darkly superstitious dread of some unfathomable threat. Everybody is saying that we have lived through a strange time. It may have been stranger than we knew.
(Courtesy: The Daily Telegraph)
Jeans have become a universal cultural language that inscribes the body
At times, I lecture at mass communication institutes and a few universities. Often, I am struck by the near sartorial uniformity among the students — the ubiquitous denim jeans. My estimate is that 80 per cent of college girls in Delhi wear trousers or a variant of it, 18 per cent an assortment of garments and the remaining two per cent salwar suits. Of the 80 per cent who wear trousers, I reckon, 85 per cent would swear by jeans. Garima, like many of her tribe, finds them to be comfortable and requiring “little maintenance.” On the other hand, Anusuya, a second year student in a prominent women’s college, feels that the jeans-tee ensemble brings out her best features.
Starting from the 70s, more and more women in India have been riding on this craze whereas the adoption of this “male” garment in the West had its moorings in the exigencies of the period and in ideology. According to Fashion Encyclopedia, the term “jeans” has existed since the 1600s, where it was a comprehensive term to describe the “rough clothing worn by working men.” Since the fabric for making this apparel often came from Genoa in Italy, it was labelled as “jean”. With weavers in the Nimes, France replicating this fabric, it acquired a new name: Denim, a corruption of the words “de Nimes.” The indigo dye used to colour the fabric blue came from India. Hence, denim meant blue jeans.
During World War I (WW-I), women, having joined the workforce, started wearing uniforms that were akin to men’s in fabric and style. This meant the transformation in the appearance of women from the feminine to masculine. Hence, taking to trousers was the next logical sartorial step. But then these tacky tracks didn’t go too far. The end of the war brought fundamental changes in British society as women outnumbered men. They felt compelled to appear more attractive. Hollywood heroines inspired them to wear make-up. The new German cult of sun-bathing became popular and sun-tanned bodies a status symbol of rich and fashionable women. With significant changes in sexual morality, availability of contraception and the founding of the abortion clinic of Marie Stopes, women were spurred to reveal more of their bodies: legs, arms, chest, back. But the great depression of the 30s, coupled with the Wall Street crash, high unemployment and higher taxation in the US led to a social churning. Married women were compelled to give up their jobs and return to “sweet domesticity.” Yet, in 1934, Levi Strauss & Co. took a risk, forever altering the course of women’s fashion. It introduced the world’s first jeans made exclusively for women: Lady Levi’s jeans for women working on farms and ranches. However, Europe was slow in warming up to this concept. Thus, for a decade or so, almost all sartorial symbols of masculinity remained mothballed.
WW-II put women back into the workforce and pants this time on both sides of the Atlantic. Popular posters of women workers encouraged others to wear practical overalls, dungarees and jeans. But post-war, women again succumbed to the natural instincts of femininity, prodded by myriad fashion pundits. Christian Dior launched the “New Look” in Paris, returning women to an overtly feminine silhouette which gave them an hour-glass figure and an extravagance so long denied to them. Some other Parisian fashion houses like Givenchy, Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Cardin, too, captivated the imagination of the fashion conscious, stimulated, as they were, by Hollywood divas like Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor.
But it was the rapid economic independence of women and their growing interest in sports and leisure activities, the relaxing of parental control over teenagers and the latter’s craving to dress like their anti-establishment idols Elvis Presley, James Dean and Beatles that led to a revival of interest in trousers. Another set of counter-culturists were the beatniks who rejected notions of glamour. The hippy revolution of the 70s, which held sway over the imagination of people globally, brought a new dimension. For the first time, women wore everything from “bedazzled and studded to bootcut jeans in public.”
Almost concurrently, and as a reaction to the entire package of fashion that sculpted the female body into a sexual object, the Women’s Liberation Movement began in the late 1960s. Femininity, the feminists argued, was a male ploy for manipulation and control over women. The crusaders advocated wearing dungarees and jeans and no adornment. In the gambit of achieving gender equality through sartorial parity, some women found trousers so comfortable that they abandoned wearing dresses and coined a new word, “power dressing.” In India, too, there is no shortage of power dressers. Thus, shorn of any existential exigencies, Indians have succumbed to be swaddled in trousers and blue jeans to conform to the global pull. While for the upper classes, foreign labels are a way of identification with their Western peers, for the not so privileged wearing jeans is a practical way of life and a means to be at par with their aspirational models. Notwithstanding the advent of new fabrics and silhouettes, trousers and jean have maintained a firm footing. It has become a universal cultural language that inscribes the body.
(The writer is former ADG, Doordarshan and founder Executive Director, Lok Sabha TV)
Imran Khan has been boxed into a tight corner as the Saudi-UAE duo has called the bluff on Pakistan trying to be too clever by half with Turkey
Last year, visiting Arab princes from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) were given Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s privileged treatment of personally chauffeuring them in a bit to dial up charm offensives. Pakistan’s situation was precarious as its coffers were dangerously depleted and in dire need of Arab largesse. Also embarrassingly for Pakistan, both monarchies had just expressed displeasure at the Pulwama terror attack. While the princes did loosen their purse strings and provide generous financial support, something was amiss. Soon the UAE announced its highest civilian award, i.e. Order of Zayed, for the Indian Prime Minister for boosting “comprehensive strategic ties.” A few years earlier, the Saudis had conferred their highest award, King Abdulaziz Sash, on the Indian Prime Minister.
Whispers of Pakistani unreliability and undercutting were gaining credence in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – the Arab monarchies were picking signs of trapeze artist Imran Khan’s growing dalliances with their nemesis of Turkey, Malaysia, Qatar and Iran. In the imploding world of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), fissures have developed, and new power centres are emerging to the discomfiture of Saudi-UAE led Gulf Sheikhdoms. Within that churn, Pakistan is no longer perceived as a dependable ally.
This sudden dissonance was contrary to Pakistan’s traditional status as Saudi Arabia’s “closest Muslim ally.” From supporting Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pak war, opposing the creation of Bangladesh, supporting Pakistani machinations in Afghanistan and Kashmir, to even supposedly funding the “Islamic Bomb,” the Saudis were once the most generous Pakistani supporters. Pakistanis had reciprocated by providing security to Saudi Arabia in terms of military, training and weaponry, as also affording the singular honour of taking Riyadh into confidence before conducting its atomic tests. The Saudis also entrusted the former Pakistani Military Chief, General Raheel Sharif, to lead the Riyadh-based 41 nation, Islamic Military Counter-Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC). UAE was part of this triumvirate and had conjointly recognised the Pak-backed Taliban government in Afghanistan and was the only country along with Saudi Arabia to hail the Pakistani atomic tests as a “bold decision.” Also, energy, commerce and expat repatriation made both these Sheikhdoms life-sustaining for governments in Islamabad. Above all, the co-religiosity and the Shariaisation project of Pakistani dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, in the 80s was principally funded and abetted by these two nations. UAE’s founding father, Sheikh Zayed, used to consider Pakistan his second home and when Dubai’s airline Emirates was launched, it was Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) that the Emiratis turned to. The cash-rich Arab royalty was feted and they treated beholden Pakistan as their backyard, with private houbara grouse hunting trips arranged for their princelings.
But the times soon changed and new considerations and urgencies kicked in with the “war on terror,” Arab Spring, deepening of sectarian faultlines and the independent assertion of countries like Turkey. But Pakistan refused to change its ways and was embarrassingly caught harbouring global terrorist Osama Bin Laden till he was “taken out” and continued playing havoc in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Pakistan also refused to participate in the Saudi-UAE’s war in Yemen, fearing sectarian repercussions on its own soil, to the chagrin of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. But Pakistan’s unpardonable undoing with the Saudi-UAE duo was its growing proximity with Turkey and assuming over-enthusiastically that it could now flex its muscle within the ummah with the support of Turkey. While countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Qatar and Iran have historically claimed “fraternal” relations with Pakistan – they are nothing compared to the financial, energy, diplomatic and strategic support that had been given by the Arab duo. Imran Khan had ungratefully partaken the opportunity to cock a snook at his biggest benefactors.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood cuttingly accused the Saudi-led OIC of “dilly-dallying” on Kashmir and in an unprecedented manner alluded to breaking ranks by saying, “I’ll be compelled to ask Prime Minister Imran Khan to call a meeting of the Islamic countries that are ready to stand with us on the issue of Kashmir.” The Arab duo noted the implied import of the loaded statement that intended to shame them and repercussions soon followed.
They decided to halt their crucial three-year aid plan to Pakistan after just a year. They repeatedly snubbed Pakistan on Kashmir. UAE faced the wrath of “Boycott UAE” trending on Pakistani social media, as it was postured that only Turkey “stood by” Islamabad. To make matters worse for an increasingly isolated Pakistan, UAE has now recognised Israel and that has weakened Pakistan’s ability to rake up issues like Palestine and more specifically, Kashmir, as the practicalities of the looming economic crisis, fight against Covid pandemic, fight against extremism and quest for regional peace override all manufactured passions of Islamabad. Pakistan’s duplicity of terror is globally established and its ability to run with the hare and hunt with the hound on terrorism in Kashmir is becoming indefensible for one-time allies like Saudi Arabia and UAE, who seek progressive equations with the West, India and even Israel. Meanwhile, Pakistan is harping and walking the opposite direction of revisionism and religious extremism.
It has tried to mend fences by dispatching the Chief of the Army Staff to Riyadh but Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman refused to meet General Qamar Bajwa. Imran Khan is boxed into a tight corner as the Saudi-UAE duo has called the bluff on Pakistan trying to be too clever by half with Turkey and has made normalcy conditional to Islamabad reneging on Ankara. Abandoning Turkey at this stage will lead to a loss of face for Pakistan as it will count as yet another act of Pakistan’s patented untrustworthiness and unreliability. Clearly Imran Khan has bitten more than he can chew – he remains saddled with a flailing economy, disrupted aid lifelines, isolation among his traditional allies and a selfish agenda of Kashmir, in which not too many are interested. The proverbial chickens are coming home to roost as Pakistan mulls over yet another botched act of biting the hand that fed it.
(The author is former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
The Question Hour allows the Opposition to keep a check on the executive. Suspending it emaciates democratic spirit
At one level, we are being told to “live with the virus,” working our ways around it with safety protocols as postponing life-altering decisions is no longer an option. Governments are working, elections are happening, policies are being made and global deliberations and summitry are on course. Yet at another level, regimes across the world are using the pandemic as an excuse to dictate national life by curbing choices and pushing their agenda. And India is no better where the democratic core of the parliamentary system is being diluted under the garb of protecting our lawmakers. What else can explain the Government’s suspension of Question Hour in the forthcoming monsoon session of Parliament as a precautionary measure against “crowding” and contraction of the Zero Hour? If crowd management is not an issue while conducting polls in Bihar or even conducting the JEE-NEET exams countrywide, why should managing MPs, who anyway are going to be on a rotational drill, be a challenge with safety protocols? That too, during Question Hour, where the Opposition gets the only chance to question the Government and hold it to account? Besides, it has a structured format, with MPs required to submit a questionnaire 15 days in advance. So there could be even a staggered roster of Ministers and their officials to answer them. But scrapping it altogether means that the Government is not ready to face uncomfortable questions on pandemic management, the economic slide and the Indo-China stand-off at Ladakh and get on with pointed legislative business without much debate and discussion. Its Ministers are clearly not willing to inform the House about the rationale of decisions taken, if not defend them. In other words, this monolithic assertiveness is corroding the deliberative and inclusive character of the legislature. Even the Zero Hour, that allows for impromptu discussion on public policy, has been curtailed to 30 minutes. Expectedly, the Opposition is going hammer and tongs over the decision, spearheaded largely by the Trinamool Congress (TMC). Its MP Derek O’ Brien has asked why the Question Hour had been dropped considering the Parliament’s overall working hours remain the same and no private members’ Bill will be moved. He even asked why the monsoon session was being called a “regular” session and not “extraordinary” to justify the curtailment of the Question Hour. The TMC even cited how the Question Hour was dropped during the 33rd (1961), 93rd (1975), 98th (1976) 99th (1977) sessions over specific reasons like Odisha, proclamation of Emergency, the 44th Amendment and President’s Rule in Tamil Nadu and Nagaland. Sensing the outcry, the Government on its part deployed seasoned senior Minister Rajnath Singh, who is known to share a good relationship with the Opposition, to converse with its leaders and ensure a smooth flow of proceedings. This individual bridge-building has worsened matters as an all-party virtual meeting could have sorted matters better. But the Opposition, which anyway doesn’t have the big enough numbers to stop Government policy, is not ready to let its voice go unheard. Or the ethics of parliamentary democracy be compromised.
The Question Hour is the only time that allows the Opposition equal standing and allows it to keep a check and balance on the executive. Even Treasury Bench MPs can ask questions of a Minister for better clarity on policies. Dropping it means reducing the relevance of the MP. A legislator asks questions on behalf of the constituents who elect him and any democratically-elected Government is, therefore, duty-bound to respond. Every citizen has the right to know the details of the functioning of a State and the Government is morally bound to place them on record. Even if the pandemic is a looming threat, the Government could have at least taken the questions and worked out a system of virtual responses in real time. Anyway, the Question Hour hardly sees a flurry as Ministers answer by rotation and questions are selected through a ballot and starred for discussion. The House of Commons even has a dedicated slot for “Prime Minister’s Questions”, where the Prime Minister personally answers or explains his Government’s functioning. That hasn’t happened here in recent memory and certainly looks most unlikely in the handout era of information dissemination. Besides, even the nature and tenor of questions are regulated by several rules before they are cleared and scheduled. So the Government should not have scrapped the Question Hour fearing recklessness and pandemonium. Perhaps, its suspension this time will also awaken the Opposition to hold up its end of the bargain going forward. For in the past, Question Hour has been routinely disrupted, stalling productive discussions and debate, particularly in the Upper House. But without it, there will be no accountability. And once a precedent is set, it will always be cited to justify another regulatory move.
India’s decision to not only rely on local manufacturing but also multiply the scale to meet global demands stands to gain extensively from multilateral support
We are moving from ‘Make in India’ to ‘Make for the world’. But as every nation is already on the brink with the pandemic, we are faced with the critical question of the existence of globalisation as we know it. Countries are looking to bring supply chains back home as a measure to increase economic resilience. At this point, India’s position on self-reliance does not steer away from multilateralism, rather embraces it. India holds a strategic position to counteract the conservative and unilateral mood pervasive in the global political economy. Its position as a fast-growing Asian power enables it to implement more equitable global rules that can protect economic interests of other developing nations as well. At the recently-concluded 19th Darbari Seth Memorial Lecture by TERI, External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar reiterated that as India enters the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as an elected member in 2021, and joins the troika of the G20 at almost the same time, “there could be no better opportunity to work with all those who recognise the benefits of multilateralism.” At the same event, António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, emphasised on the necessity of taking climate risks into account in all financial and policy decisions and furthering collective action.
Some experts have argued that a retreat from the multilateral trade order is likely to widen inequalities between countries, virtually disable economies of scale thereby making everything more expensive, limit free mobility of goods and services, thereby affecting employment and intensify geo-political tensions, making it difficult for an already fragile global economy to recover. As more countries shift away from this era of globalisation, it is crucial to prepare for what takes its place. In this flailing global discourse, we explore the value that multilateral institutions (MLIs) and developmental banks stand to add, especially for developing countries like ours. In this context, we discuss three vital roles MLIs play.
Mobilisers of finance: One branch of MLIs comprises Multilateral Developmental Banks (MDBs), which help mobilise finance globally, particularly in fragile States and lower and upper middle-income countries. In the new world order that countries are expected to enter in the post-COVID scenario, the role of MDBs is crucial from three vantage points. First, fast-emerging economies like India can enable transformative action by achieving economies of scale. The extent and potential of scalability of new research in India and other developing countries is very large. This has been evident in wide adoption of technological innovation in vital sectors such as clean energy, low carbon alternatives and even models of large-scale financing. In order to tap into this potential, adequate finance must be mobilised to spur investment required to achieve scale. Public finance is argued to be one such driver of investment in upcoming sectors. However, such finance is often already stretched thin to be able to wholly mobilise financial resources in newer avenues such as hydrogen and wind and hydro-power among others. In the past, MDB financing has enabled an irreversible transition to favourable technologies and means of production. This source of financing will be all the more crucial as countries start looking to internalise supply chains. Second, catalysing private finance. Investments by MDBs reduce risk perception, create conducive environment for private investment and lead to a lower cost of financing for newer sectors. In addition to these financial gains, the presence of an MDB also reduces policy risk, lack of credibility and minimises the problem of contract enforcement. This in turn helps mobilise further private interest. Investment in renewables in India gained significantly from investment by MDBs. In 2018, MDBs reported mobilisation of over $69 billion of private finance in low and middle-income countries.
Third, enhancing institutional capacity. MDBs help strengthen developmental policy to bring about institutional reforms in key sectors. Such measures are essential in building capacity and increasing the scale of reach. For example, financial assistance during the pandemic has been crucial in such capacity building in a variety of sectors ranging from health to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). As economies recover, MDB financing will be vital in reviving key productivity.
Tackling global externalities: One of the fundamental purposes of the inception of MLIs has been to overcome market failures. Climate change is the biggest market failure that we are currently witnessing. MLIs have been instrumental in bringing together policymakers to take collective action to safeguard against this externality by enabling structural transformations that bring about more sustainable economies. Institutions such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Green Climate Fund (GCF), Adaptation Fund (AF) and other global bodies play the critical role of mobilising technical resources, knowledge and expertise from across the world into the poorest and vulnerable regions. Even if the global order transitions into that of more conservative and closed economies, climate change will remain an externality necessitating collective solutions. In such a scenario, support by MLIs will be vital for local civil societies to carry out research and evidence building.
This is essential for three critical activities. First, continued ground-level research on adapting to climate change. Second, dissemination of new research, which can be further scaled by multilateral support. And third, increased community-based action to build resilience which can support long-term sustainable solutions. Climate-related disasters and the associated chronic challenges that the world is likely to face require the same urgency as when dealing with the acute health impacts of COVID-19. This necessitates countries, the private sector and civil societies to engage collectively. MLIs can help achieve this with efficacy.
Global coalitions between governments and the private sector: Inter-national multilateral agreements play an important role in achieving both global climate and sustainable development goals. They play an important role in nudging national policies to combat climate change and spurring sub-national and non-State actors to action as well. This was evident in the 2019 UN Climate Summit, where major industries pledged to reducing emissions. Several Indian industry front-runners were also part of the ‘Industry Transition Track’ led jointly by the Indian Government and Sweden. Multilateral agreements play a crucial role in building new alliances and coalitions as highlighted by the International Solar Alliance and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. Such coalitions are effective on both domestic and international platforms. On a domestic scale, these ensure a coordination of action across developmental policy and climate action. At the international level, it would help in ensuring a continuum in real climate action. They can support coalitions between governments to develop favourable ecosystems which further enable non-State action.
It is evident that countries are moving towards more unilateral policy frameworks. This has raised concerns if the widespread conservative sentiment on international policy and the precarious global supply chain could mean a reversal of what the Bretton Woods Agreement sought to achieve in 1944. One of the most pressing global problems — climate-related disasters — does not impact countries and institutions in silos. These impending and ongoing crises require urgent attention and action. Countries, private sector and civil societies, therefore, must engage collectively. MLIs, by their design and purpose, can help achieve this effectively.
In this context MLIs can support three interlinked activities: Mobilisation of finance, streamlined action towards tackling the biggest global externality and engagement of State and non-State actors to further climate action. These will hold immense importance even as countries choose to move into more unilateral and autarkist policies. Enabling large-scale finance to minimise carbon lock-in, creating conducive market conditions for green investments and building resilience through enhanced adaptation can be achieved with the support of dedicated MLIs. Their unique structure allows them to disseminate knowledge, technical and financial resources from developed countries for the benefit of emerging economies and vulnerable communities. India’s decision to not only rely on local manufacturing but also multiply the scale to meet global demands stands to gain extensively from multilateral support.
(Mangotra is Associate Director, Earth Sciences and Climate Change Division and Ritu Ahuja is Research Associate, Centre for Global Environment Research, TERI)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month