Buy One, Get One Free

                                                              Buy One, Get One Free

I hope Hillary Clinton accepts my slogan Buy One Get One Free as she seeks entry for a third time into the White House. Her first two times at the White House were as FLOTUS(First Lady of the US) and there has been an interval of eight Obama years  before her present attempt to gain entry this time  into the West Wing of the Presidential mansion( as the East wing will be for the First Gentleman of the US or for the First Laddie of US as Bill would like to be called so that the acronym FLOTUS is retained).  US known for its advertising and marketing strategy cannot imagine a better slogan for Hillary’s presidential candidature than this one- (even if this sounds a vain boast). During the last three days of the Democratic convention, there were three powerful endorsement for her candidature from a former President(Bill Clinton), the serving President(Obama), the current FLOTUS(Michelle Obama) and Hillary’ daughter(Chelsea)making it partly a family endorsement and partly a Presidential endorsement.

With the breaking of the glass ceiling at this highest level, US will be the first to reverse the famous saying: Behind every successful man is his woman. Bill Clinton’s emotional speech layered with vignettes from his personal and professional life with Hillary in tow and his effusive praise of his wife as the “darn game changer” is a testimony to the robustness of the American family and culture. Their only child Chelsea introduced her Mom as my mother who “never ever forgets who she is fighting for.”  Chelsea with great pride spoke of her mother, “She's a listener, a doer. She is a woman driven by compassion, by faith, but a fierce sense of justice and a heart full of love. Come this November, I'm voting for a woman as a role model and a mother- a woman who has spent her entire life fighting for families and children. I'm voting for the Progressive who will protect our planet from climate change, who will reform our criminal justice system, who knows that women's rights are human rights, and who knows that LGBT rights are human rights. Here at home, and around the world, I'm voting for a fighter who never ever gives up and who believes we can always do better when we come together and work together. I hope that my children will someday be as proud of me as I am of my mom. I am so grateful to be her daughter. To everyone watching here at home, I know with all my heart that my mother will make us proud as our next president”.

 This was a powerful counterbalance to Ivanka Trump, Chelsea Clinton's friend who introduced her father, Donald Trump, at the Republican National Convention last week. And combined with Bill Clinton's speech, it again underscored that both nominees' best surrogates in the 2016 campaign are often their family members. Hillary in turn said that she would put her husband in charge of fixing the US economy as he knows what he is doing. Can we ever imagine any of our politicians stating that s/he would place her/his close relative in

high position? In fact, even a chief minister like Kejriwall in Delhi cannot  ask for an officer of his choice, leave aside asking for any relative or favourite to be given important position. Hillary’s plea with the US voters was similar to buy one, get one free- vote me and vote us both.

Not even once has there been a criticism about dynastic politics as what matters for the Americans is the quality of the person to ascend to the highest office. If the quality is missing, the climber falls even before reaching the first rung of the ascent to the highest office.  Unlike in India, the second largest democracy next to US, it matters little if one’s credentials are bolstered by his/her family name. Five and a half decades back John F. Kennedy came into the White house with a charisma unparalleled in the world. When his tenure was tragically cut short, Americans enthusiastically welcomed his brother Robert Kennedy to make a bid for Presidency. It was the most poignant moment when he too was shot. Edward Kennedy, the third brother was approached but he declined and remained a powerful Senator till the end. His eulogy of his brother Robert is once again a testimony of how Americans bond un- self consciously with their families. After half a century, we see a repetition of family bonding in Bill’s advocacy of his wife as a worthy person to step in when Obama finishes his term. The               President and the first lady stole the thunder at the democratic convention with their powerful speeches in support of Hillary Clinton.  The President humbly said that “ I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill [Clinton], nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” It is difficult to imagine any politician in India at the time of relinquishing his office( though no one never wishes to quit) speaking with such humility, modesty, without ego and envy about his/her successor.

What a difference between our attitude to politics that sneers at the intrusion of family regarding politics as a haloed public sphere! It is indeed a measure of that distinction that most of our PMs were either bachelors or widowers, starting with Pt. Nehru to Morarji Desai  and now to Narendar Modi while others like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Chandrasekhar, Charan Singh, shied away from bringing their wives into limelight. Even Mahatma Gandhi is often spoken as the Father to the nation and a stranger to his sons. So when dynastic rule is even covertly attempted, Indians protest vehemently.  We hear the oft bandied Sanskrit phrase  ‘Vasudeva kutumbakam’(The world is one family) The concept originates in the Vedic scripture Maha Upanishad (Chapter 6, Verse 72): अयं बन्धुरयं नेति गणना लघुचेतसां उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकं (ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam udaracharitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam)

which means  “Only small men discriminate saying: One is a relative; the other is a stranger. For those who live magnanimously the entire world constitutes but a family.”

No wonder we frown upon dynastic politics that is at a premium in Indian democracy. And yet, Indian family is mostly a bonded family. The parental umbrella over their wards is never closed and parents scrimp and save for their children to inherit a tidy fortune. Family inheritance is never frowned upon by all those outside the family but when it crosses the threshold of the home and comes into public sphere, it loses its heritage status for the family to lay its claims. This is a recent phenomenon. In my younger days, family honour and preservation of family pride was of great importance. I was proud to be my father’s daughter to follow in his footsteps. Today any claim to one’s achievement has to be that of the  individual,l lest the society should attribute it to the family’s influence and contacts. Indians have become very self conscious to speak about their families – in particular if the families are well placed.  The politician who grooms his son to succeed him is castigated for promoting dynastic politics. Such is the antipathy for dynastic policies that even Pt,.Nehru and his daughter have often been shaken from their iconic pedestals. The Mahatma is praised for he was a Father to the nation and a stranger to his sons.  For the Indian, the unwritten law is dynasty and democracy do not go together. When the offspring of a politician stakes his claims to follow in his parents’ footsteps, he is ridiculed and assailed with patriotic cries “Monarchy est mort, vive le Democracy(Monarchy is dead; long live democracy)”.

 Well, America is America; India is India. The two democracies do not meet.

An Open Letter to Hon’ble Minister of HRD.

Respected Sir,

Kindly accept my apologies for this impertinence to write a letter. I have my defence for doing so simply because I have no vested interest. I superannuated ten years back after serving the University of Delhi in various capacities as a teacher, Principal and Dean during a span of forty years.  I have thus the experience of an insider and the wisdom in hindsight garnered during the decade after retirement. In effect, I write this letter after half a century of joining the academic profession.

It is a truism that the quality of higher education needs to be bolstered. There is a perceptible decline in the quality of all sections of academic stakeholders that include students, teachers, academic administrators like the Principals, Directors and Vice-Chancellors –not to leave out the administrative staff managing the affairs of higher educational institutions. The irony is everyone laments this quality decline, but no one offers a solution. The government in its wisdom periodically appoints a committee to make recommendations and the committee-normally headed by a retired bureaucrat and a few members unconnected with academics makes a recommendatory report that has its use only for the Teachers’ Associations to go on strike. After the NEP of 1986, there has been no effective policy, only sporadic cosmetic changes made  to address the problem of quality decline in higher education. I have a few suggestions to offer, though with all modesty, I do not claim to have spoken the last hundred words on this issue.

The decline that we attribute to Indian higher education is not a unique phenomenon; it is global except for a few pockets of excellence-in particular in some of the renowned universities in US, UK and Europe. This is because of modern interpretation of higher education that equates post- school learning of every kind, with college/university education.  College education is for the acquisition of knowledge and offers degree certificate on completion of graduate and post graduate courses in disciplines studied by the student. Today industry sets the curriculum and higher education is increasingly subjected to industry’s demands and has deflected from its objective to generate new thoughts, ideas and values.

There are institutions offering certificates and diplomas in vocational and skill training courses. The hon’ble Prime Minister had launched Skill India last year, to provide skills and competencies in areas that require trained personnel. The problem before us is the confusion between knowledge and skills. One cannot acquire knowledge through skills just as knowledge does not provide adequate competency for jobs that demand special skills.

This means bifurcation of post- school learning to vocational and academic courses. It may not sound politically expedient to restrict entry to universities to those who have an aptitude for academic study. The present policy of opening the university portals to every student who clears his school finals is one of the major reasons for the decline in quality of higher education.  The government has to be bold to adopt the five finger theory to recognize that all are not intellectually strong and inclined to pursue academics and the effort should be to provide avenues for development to young men and women with different talent and different turn of mind, outside the university system. A society does not rest upon intellectuals; it rests upon a variety of individuals with skills to attend to its multifarious needs. Today a majority of graduates with a third division or a ‘C’ grade acquire neither knowledge nor skills to be employable. The fault does not lie with the institution or with the teachers but with unwilling and disinterested students who do not have the aptitude for academic studies.  The large unemployed and unemployable youth is a testimony to poor standards of graduate students. The three years are a waste and leave an army of disgruntled, disappointed and unqualified youth after passing out of (or failing in )  colleges.

This bifurcation should begin after the X^th class. The last two years in school should have three different courses for those who want to pursue academics or take up professional studies or to go for vocational or skill training courses.  This will automatically bring down the numbers seeking admission to colleges and help the teachers to get out of the conundrum of how to teach disinterested and unmotivated students. The smaller the number, the greater will be the individualized attention from the teachers. Quality is inversely proportional to quantity and restricting the intake will bring about instant improvement in college education. In the bargain, universities and academic institutions will have only dedicated students to pursue research and generate new ideas for the growth and development of society.

This move has to be complemented by opening polytechnics and skill training centres to accommodate a vast number of students after school. These courses should include language skills to communicate and basic computer skills besides the skill training in many areas for the students to opt for. The Open University is already in place for those who wish to acquire degrees alongside their training. Education is not to be limited to academic knowledge, it also includes knowledge about fine arts and performing arts and developing sensitivity to art and aesthetics. It is the refinement of feeling and thoughts that will promote the holistic growth of an individual and enable him/her to cultivate humanity. On the PPP model there can be schools for theatre studies, for fine arts and performing arts, sports, film studies for those interested in handling stage props, lights, costumes, make-up and camera.

Quality enhancement is directly related to faculty. It is a fact that academics has been the last refuge of unemployed post graduates. If one does not get into civil services or MNCs or well paid Indian companies, the final destination is academics. Except for a very small number, all those who take up college teaching are those for whom all other options are closed. Without a genuine flair for teaching and without commensurate communication skills, these dispirited young men and women take up academics as a choice-less choice.

Currently the UGC has set up norms for working hours. These norms stipulate 16 periods per week for Assistant Professors, 14 for Associate and 12 for professors. Higher education is different from school teaching. As per the new regulations the classes are spread from 8:30 in the morning to 4 or 4:30 in the evening. If students sit throughout the day in class, where is the time for library work? Teaching at the college level is not providing facts and figures but has to be catalytic in making students learn to think, analyze and appreciate ideas and seminal works of great writers. One hour lecture should pack all that is to be said on any given topic. The teacher gives the students powerful insights and lets them do self study. The quality decline that we see today is the university and college teaching has not gone beyond school instruction. In the process, neither the teacher nor the student has any time left for pursuit of research and advanced study. Quantifying and maximizing the number of teaching hours is detrimental to qualitative improvement in our colleges and universities. A new pedagogy has to be framed for college and university teaching that leaves adequate time for self advancement of knowledge.  Two lectures, two tutorials and two seminars per week should be the work load of a teacher. This in effect translates to minimum teaching, maximum learning. The German model with its unity of teaching and research should be emulated by our universities to bring about quality improvement .

One of the problems is the dispersal of funds. The funding for University research is a shared funding with many other research institutions such as IISc, Indian Instt. of Astrophyics, Indian Instt. of Chemical biology, IARI, IIST etc – to name just a few. It may be worthwhile to merge some of them with the University departments or facilitate collaboration between them so that research funding does not get dissipated. There cannot be too many claimants for an already shrunk pie.  To sustain research at a premium level, there should not be competition but collaboration between research organizations which is absent today. For lack of funding and quality research facilities, a large number of our graduate students migrate to foreign countries.

Today promotions are made as per the API (academic performance indicator). Kindly abolish API. We need not import everything American into our system. The API has many flaws. Every applicant will raise his scores to the required number to be called for the interview. This kind of CV selfie is inauthentic and questionable. Secondly it starts with the premise that all appointments and promotions before API came into force were biased, subjective and flawed. Having had the experience initially of being a candidate for a teaching position and later to the position of the administrative head of a college( when I interviewed candidates along with a team of university appointed experts) and finally to that of a Dean, I can vouch for a fair selection in those days. Maybe one or two odd selections under political pressure would have been made, but by and large, they were fair and square, free from favouritism and bias. In a College with a faculty strength of 100, not more than five would have been selected who did not conform to established standards.  API looks askance at the integrity of professors of the past who by and large had reached that position through their own merit. The API scores for publication lend itself to the most corrupt practice. Everyone knows how the same paper with change of titles is presented in different seminars and published in different journals with questionable credentials. Even obtaining  ISBN number is no longer a difficult proposition. This CV selfie is fraught with dishonest practices. The scores for service to the corporate sector are also questionable. Instead, there has to be a proper annual evaluation system- by the department Head, the Principal/ Dean, University experts( to look into research work) and students on the basis of the faculty’s teaching and research. Promotions on the basis of assured career progression scheme should continue while those who have proved their worth in teaching and research should be put on the fast track- all subject to a fair and unbiased interview by university professors and scholars of repute.

While reservations meant as affirmative action are ethically, morally and politically welcome to counter past discrimination, fresh thought has to be bestowed on making it beneficial to the recipients. In Tamil, we have a saying : “Pathiram arindu pichai idu” –i.e., whenever we donate, we should donate to the deserving. We have to Identify the talent and the strength and provide opportunities that satisfy every individual’s capability potential. Those good at sports, in music, dance or drama, should be provided with learning and employable opportunities in these fields. Reservation as it is enforced today is just the opening of the doors of universities and professional colleges to all and sundry who may not have the aptitude and the interest in pursuing studies. People should not demand more than they can chew. They should be given opportunities that they can explore in keeping with their talent.

Lastly but the most important aspect is the autonomy of universities and colleges. All higher education institutions should be free from political interference. This alone will ensure fair selection of Vice-Chancellors, who in turn will ensure fair recruitment faculty. The present criticism that Leftists have dominated Indian Universities cannot be set right by encouraging domination by Rightists.  University is a place for debate and discussion between ideologues of different political, social and economic systems. True learning is effected through dialogue between professors and students, enabling the students to analyze and critique ideologies with objectivity.  Government must have a parental role to sustain and nurture higher education without being paternalistic.

 Sir, these are suggestions that can work only through courage of conviction.  They are suggestions that have the potential for promoting excellence in higher education. They have a built-in transparency to ensure a fair and just implementation.  As a long standing academic, I have had the good fortune to work and interact with high quality professors both in India and abroad. Let them be your focus to build a new education policy. There is no dearth of quality professors in our midst. But if we do not harness their intellect, wisdom and integrity, we may let go of the vast intellectual resources in our midst. Let us not be criticized for non acknowledgement of their contribution without ever seeking due approbation. Let us avoid getting into a climate where

 Knowledge to their eyes her ample page

 Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll;

 Chill Penury repressed their noble rage,

 And froze the genial current of the soul.

 Full many a gem of purest ray serene,

 The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:

 Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,

 And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

With warm regards

Hema Raghavan

                                                           

The De-humanization of the Visual Media.

                                         The De-humanization of the Visual Media.

In the last few years, our entertainment channels have changed their focus from the saas-bahu sagas to horror serials with grotesque and scary looking actors and unbelievable savage brutality of action,  that make viewing a frightening and unsettling experience. The evening entertainment these days seems to be a visual reproduction of what we read in the morning newspapers, where every page reports murder, rape, brutality, robbery, fatal accidents apart from the political skullduggery at display both in the houses of the Parliament and on the streets. The only significant difference is the hard reality of news and the supernatural grotesquerie on our tele -screens.  The latest example is the new serial Kavach replacing Naagin that ended a few days before. The channel started airing the promos for the new serial nearly a month before it started telecasting. The promos presented a dishevelled Mona Singh(otherwise  a remarkable actress reputed for her grace, poise and style) with  blood shot eyes, acting the role of a devil possessed character. All TV channels have included a bizarre  horror flick or a ghost- focused serial and they up the ante by such ghastly promos, followed by a self flattering note  that the new serial will be even better than the earlier one- the snake-centred Naagin which presumably had garnered fantastic TRP ratings. These serials insult the intelligence of the viewers by such crass and dark presentation of spirit- possessed heroines (why only heroines are possessed by spirits and not the suited-booted heroes, I wonder). The story is a drag, the characters are unreal and inhabit the dark interiors of our psyche and their make-up and costumes  especially of the spirit possessed dayaan or witches) are horrendous and repulsive that affront  our aesthetic sensibility.

Not to be outdone by such supernatural TV serials that come into our living rooms, we have serials like Yudh(the first Bachchan starrer on TV) and season one of  the serial 24 that are violent, to use a mild word. The promos of Season two of the same serial 24, based on the American series of the same name, show not only violence, but portrayal of human crassness and boorishness. It is a sad reflection that Indians never invent, they ‘desi’fy foreign products in every sphere. We have the Indian version of Mcburger, Mcpuff, Italian pasta and noodles, Chinese chowmein, Manchurian etc. Even in entertainment, we import Dance America, American idol, America Got Talent, Big Boss, How to win Million dollars etc with an Indian twist. The newest entrant to this haloed “phoren” invention is the serial 24. We are known for our improvised jugaad and find our inventive genius to borrow ideas from foreign countries and turn them as made in India.

The violence that one sees in a serial like 24 is mind-boggling in its absurdity and cruelty. This serial like many contemporary films is also of violence, for violence and heaved by violence. It is a take- off on an American serial and drips violence from start to finish. Watching violent films is today considered displaying macho bravado and having a strong stomach. Even women do not like to be seen as timid with no stomach for anything violent. When the screen shows the most gruesome and repellent scenes of murder, the viewer keeps watching with a consolation that it is only reel reality.  If such things happen in our real life, we will be frozen stiff in fear and helplessness. The vicarious viewing of that which is far removed from us does not credit us in the least with a sense of bravery. It is sheer escapism, to be far away from the madding reality.  Sadly in all these serials the good, bad and the ugly –all come to a pathetic end providing neither comfort nor solace.

What is happening in the US is happening here. The gun culture is widely predominant among us and at the slightest provocation one zips out the pistol and shoots the man in front in the blink of an eye. The present day generation fed on violent movies has become immune to the gory and blood thirsty scenes. The producers of such films claim that violence in movies has a cathartic effect on the viewers and purges them of anger and violence. But this is not the truth. In the 1970s, England experimented with the theatre of violence. Edward Bond, one of the famous playwrights of this genre justified it saying "I write about violence just the way Jane Austen wrote about manners…Violence shapes and obsesses our society, and if we do not stop being violent we have no future. People who do not want writers to write about violence want to stop them writing about us and our time. It would be immoral not to write about violence." He concluded saying, “If you can't face Hiroshima in the theatre, you'll eventually end up in Hiroshima itself." But facing Hiroshima in the theatre has only brought   Hiroshima to our doorstep!

What do we see now after nearly fifty years? The new generation that has grown upon violence has adopted the gun culture. We need no theatres, no words, no promptings. Just pick up the gun and shoot if the man (or woman) before you is not in agreement with your views. The chilling Nirbhaya episode which was a testimony to inhuman brutality and the subsequent rapes and murders over the last few years are the result of the horror that is being glorified by our visual media. America reports almost daily shootings of innocents in restaurants, children in schools which have now extended to racial aggression where cops attack civilians and vice versa on the basis of the skin colour.  President Obama’s attempt to control the gun law has also failed. To complicate matters further, we have the rise of IS terrorism where any number of young Jihadis have been trained to kill and be killed because they have been guaranteed a place in Heaven. The new recruits for the JIhadi status are brainwashed to believe in the misrepresented and perverted interpretation  of the Quran to give up their family, employment and country and  take up the gun and shoot all those who do not follow their version of Islam. Violence and death have become so common that nothing startles us.

Our films and serials centred on anger, vengeance and violence cannot be equated with the old classics built on the theory of catharsis. There is no trace of purging the negative emotions of fear and pity; on the contrary, the present day visual media is justifying the negative emotions to heighten ruthlessness, pitilessness and heartlessness. The rise in the incidence of rape, road rage, murder and violence, the quickness with which one pulls the trigger and the mindlessness and feelinglessness in the aftermath of murder are symptomatic of a society in decay.

Do we need such blood chilling serials and films?  Do the producers want us to believe that this is also a slice-of- life and must be viewed as a realistic experience.  How many of these producers know what A.G. Gardiner wrote about achieving  the maximum result with the minimum effort. “It is the art of the great either who with a line reveals infinity. It is the art of the great dramatist who with a significant word shakes the soul. Schiller, said Coleridge, burns a city to create his effect of terror: Shakespeare drops a handkerchief and freezes our blood.”  The way we present violence is just the opposite of the effect produced by Shakespeare for such scenes affect us negatively without the certainty or affirmation of a restoration of order. There has to be a ban on presenting violence as a justified way of life. There has to be a censoring of serials that encourage supernatural occurrence and irrational phobias. Our great epic, The Mahabharata shows the bloodiest war when all men belonging to the Kuru dynasty were killed except for the five Pandavas who take control of Hastinapur and bring harmony and peace to the strife-torn kingdom. The other epic, The Ramayana highlights the power of Rama to destroy the demons among whom Ravana was the deadliest. We see violence in the plays of Shakespeare and Sophocles, but what sets all of them apart from modern portrayal of violence is the attempt to restore moral order after the churning  and destruction. All the Classics give us hope as good triumphs over evil at the end. But today violence is presented to encourage and justify violence as a way of life. The consequences of such exhibition are what we see today –in the daily killings of people in different parts of the world. What a pity that we have imported violence in entertainment without understanding the deadly results of watching such mindless and unending violence in our drawing rooms.

This is dehumanization of the popular medium. Can the visual media wake up to recognize the fall out of such shows and put an end to a deadly imagination that releases the dark forces and blind us from seeing  the light of reason, beauty , kindness, compassion and humaneness – the qualities that  knit us together as the best of God’s creation!