India Positive

by Chetan Bhagat

  This is what happened when Rohith Vemula, a twenty-five year old PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, took his own life after leaving a touching suicide note. Suicides can partly be linked to one’s specific personality and mental makeup. However, some of it can—and in this case is—linked to the world around the person.

  While Rohith’s note blames no one for his death, he does mention his agony over being ostracised (he was suspended and asked to leave the hostel along with a few others), denied his due (his fellowship was delayed, causing financial hardship), and discriminated against.

  A particular chain of events seems to have culminated in his suicide. Rohith was involved in student politics. Apparently, he joined protests against Yakub Memon’s hanging. During those protests, he had run-ins with ABVP students, who are backed by the BJP. An ABVP activist claimed that he was manhandled by Rohith and others, and a complaint was lodged. While such events are unsavoury, they are not unusual in Indian campuses, many of which are politically charged.

  However, what happened next was unusual. The local MP, along with Union Labour Minister Bandaru Dattatreya, wrote a letter to HRD minister Smriti Irani, alleging that the university had become a ‘den of casteist, extremist and anti-national politics’. The HRD ministry wrote to the university vice-chancellor, seeking to know what action was being taken.

  Eventually, five students including Rohith were suspended and denied hostel accommodation. They camped outside the campus gates in a tent in protest. Rohith, unfortunately, committed suicide after a few days.

  There is a clear conflict of interest when an ABVP complaint gets so much attention from two BJP-run Union ministries, which in turn can easily put pressure on the university to clamp down.

  Meanwhile, politicians of all shades descended on the University of Hyderabad campus, particularly those that sought Dalit votes. I don’t know what is sadder, a young man killing himself, or politicians flocking to the venue to increase their vote banks. This drama of blame-game politics on the issue will continue.

  What we should focus on instead is deriving lessons from the incident. There are serious issues in the way we manage our universities, and it needs to be understood that Rohith’s suicide is a horrible outcome of such mismanagement.

  The single biggest issue confronting government universities is the level of autonomy the government gives to the university management. These institutions are run on taxpayer money, so clearly the government cannot take a completely hands-off approach. At the same time, should there be letters from Union ministries enquiring about specific cases involving students?

  Should student discipline be a university issue, a local MP issue, a police issue or a Union ministry issue? Should government colleges even allow student politics on campus? Wouldn’t campus politics create conflicts of interest and place students at risk, especially if they don’t belong to the party that forms the government?

  We don’t know yet if the suspended students deserved punishment or not. However, who should be making this decision? If it is the university, should MPs be writing letters to ministers to take action, or equally bad, politicians from opposing sides descend on the university campus to decry the action? Why are we turning our universities into a joke? Isn’t there enough silly politics around anyway?

  Autonomy is the heart of the issue here, if not the only one. There are other aspects of the case that need to be discussed too. Why are government payments delayed so often? The university claims that Rohith’s fellowship was delayed due to administrative issues and not out of vindictiveness. Even if one believes this, why are student stipends withheld for months at a time? Rohith’s suicide note states that financial difficulties were a big factor in his taking his life.

  Another issue is Rohith’s presumed identity as a Dalit, and the discrimination Dalit students face on campus. It is a deplorable but unfortunate reality in a system where merit is given a backseat to identity. If we didn’t have caste-based reservations, caste wouldn’t be so relevant on campus. It would soon become a non-issue. If we can shift to an economic criteria for reservation rather than a caste-based one (today, we have the technology to do this), we can reduce the stigma associated with caste.

  Unfortunately, caste reservations—the very scheme that was designed to make people more equal—has become the biggest cause of discrimination on every campus. It happened during my days at IIT, and it happens in every university with reservation today. Can’t we switch to better admission criteria?

  Politicians posturing and blaming each other on TV will achieve nothing. A genuine tribute to Rohith would be to learn the right lessons from his suicide. We need to make changes in the way we manage and run our universities. We also need to free our universities of caste and politics. Let’s do it sooner rather than later, to prevent more cases like Rohith’s in the future.

  Indian Institute of Autonomy: Don’t Kill a Model that Works

  To create and sustain world-class institutes of higher learning, maintain a balance between state control and institutional autonomy

  I was once invited to join a panel discussion at a conference of vice-chancellors held at Rashtrapati Bhavan. To give credit where it is due, it was a well-organised and well-intentioned event. Nearly a hundred VCs of top central universities across India attended the conference.

  The attendees, divided into several sub-groups, discussed the burning issues faced by the education sector today. Although the format of the meet was a tad too formal and colonial in protocol, the ideas were all current and relevant. The need to integrate industry-research-academia, using technology more effectively, driving innovation and entrepreneurship, tapping alumni bases, inter-university collaboration, and network connectivity—all these wonderful thoughts were discussed. Hence, the theory that the heads of our educational institutions are outdated and don’t know what’s going on in the world, was disproved.

  And yet, few would disagree that there is plenty that needs to be done in the education sector.

  If everyone in the country agrees on the wonderful ideas discussed in the conference, why doesn’t it happen? Why isn’t there more industry–university interaction, for instance? Why do we fall behind in cutting-edge research? Why don’t we have more A-grade institutions? Why are the education brands created in the ’60s and ’70s—the IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, some Delhi University colleges and a couple of other places—the only reputed institutions in the country to date? Why haven’t we created new brands in education, at par with IITs and the IIMs, in the ’80s, the ’90s or the new millennium?

  The answer lies in our inability to manage an extraordinarily important issue affecting every state-owned institution in India—the question of autonomy. No matter how vocal and well-versed the academic heads were in that conference, the fact of the matter is that they won’t be able to implement even 10 per cent of their ideas because their hands are tied. In India, the state funds the university and, hence, controls it. For our universities to thrive, the extent of control and the level of autonomy need to find an optimal balance.

  For the IITs and the IIMs, the control–autonomy balance seems to have worked better than for the others. As a result, they could adapt better to changing times, attract top talent and maintain high standards of excellence over time. Small wonder, then, that their brand value exceeds that of the other institutes.

  Of course, even IIMs are not immune to interference from the government. The new IIM bill of 2015, purportedly designed to make them statutory institutions so they can issue degrees instead of diplomas (a technicality for all practical purposes), is going to dramatically reduce the delicate autonomy balance that has helped the IIMs thrive.

  To its credit, the government did place the draft bill for public consultation (on mygov.in). However, the proposed version is worded in a way that government approval will be required for almost all operations that matter—recruitment, enrolment, compensation and research. Needless to say, it will drastically reduce the autonomy of the I
IMs and tilt the balance in favour of government control. IIMs, as we know them, will be changed forever.

  Note the important distinction between full autonomy and balanced autonomy. A government-funded institution cannot be free of government control. Monitoring its performance or funding through annual reviews should be well within the government’s purview. The problem occurs when it keeps the right to meddle at the operational level, interfering in the day-to-day running of the institution. Air India and ITDC hotels are visible examples of what happens when the government does that.

  When you aspire to be world class, government interference on a daily basis can be devastating. It’s important to understand that great educational institutions become great because of the people there—the faculty and the students. Otherwise, a college is just buildings and furniture. To be the best, you need a vital ingredient whose value is often ignored in India—top talent. Top talent, rare by definition, has the ability to innovate and execute, and thereby change a field. Top talent, which could come from anywhere, can transform a nation. The sad part is that we neither recognise it nor know how to manage it.

  If you want world-class faculty to run an IIM, but have babus breathing down their necks, who in turn have netas looking over their shoulders, why would top talent want to join the institution in the first place? The salaries are already low (government job levels). Now, we also want them to obey whimsical orders from netas who care more about pleasing their constituencies than the world rankings of a top-class institute.

  By definition, politics is inclusive. But excellence demands some exclusivity. If politicians run our finest educational institutions on a daily basis, constant clashes will be inevitable. That will only harm the institute. Why do it? Why mess up something good? Why not, in fact, liberate the other universities too? Release those VCs with great ideas and tied hands. Give them enough autonomy to create their own university brands. Monitor them, have checks and balances, but don’t run the place.

  The IIMs are not without flaws. They should be monitored and improved. However, killing the autonomy balance that has worked well for them so far would be counter-productive. Instead, we should replicate the model with other universities and generate more brands like the IIMs.

  It would be a shame if we didn’t know how to manage an institution that teaches, well, management.

  @chetan_bhagat

  Stone pelting is not kids playing with pebbles. It’s a violent attack with hard, heavy, rock-like stones thrown at people. It is not an acceptable means of protest. Stop glorifying it. Stop justifying it. Take action against those doing it.

  373 replies/ 2,866 retweets/ 9,028 likes

  Letter to Kashmiri Youth: Even If You Don’t Like India, Here’s Why Your Best Bet Is to Integrate J&K With It

  The youth of the Valley should take the lead in bringing it back into the Indian Union

  Dear Kashmiri friends (the ones who don’t like India),

  I write in this open forum because something terrible is happening in the Kashmir Valley. The events at NIT Srinagar caught the entire nation’s attention. Some students burst crackers when India lost the T20 semifinal. Many students were beaten for raising the Indian flag. Thereafter, bloody clashes broke out in north Kashmir.

  I understand that there is little pro-India sentiment amongst locals in the Kashmir Valley. Many would rather the Valley be on its own, and some wouldn’t even mind going over to Pakistan. I will not judge you. Despite being a patriotic Indian, I won’t hold it against you if you hate India. You must and do have your reasons for it.

  However, allow me to present another point of view. Allow me to tell you that your future will be brightest, on a practical basis, if the Kashmir Valley integrates with India. This is not an emotional, political or historical argument. It is simply more rational for people in the Kashmir Valley who seek a better future to do it in India.

  Sure, the experts will jump on me now—experts who have made the Kashmir problem their fiefdom. Indeed, if the problem were solved, how would these people stay relevant? Hence, they will always attack any solution that is proposed for the Kashmir crisis with their elitist ‘this is too complicated an issue’ stance. They love ‘complicated’. It gives them another conference to attend. You suffer with ‘complicated’, as the problem never gets solved.

  The issue is complicated, for sure. For those who don’t know the Kashmir issue, here it is in a nutshell. India became independent. The princely states were assimilated into the Indian Union. Jammu & Kashmir didn’t accede. Pakistan attacked Kashmir, and took half of it (and still controls it). Kashmir’s ruler called India for help. In return for this help, J&K became part of India, but with riders.

  J&K would have its own constitution, and enjoy more political independence than other states, while the Centre would handle defence, foreign affairs and communications. In theory, it was a good solution, a sort of ‘one country, two systems’ approach. In reality, it never worked.

  Instead of a child with two parents, as planned, J&K became nobody’s child and an orphan. Pakistan took advantage of this situation and used the common factor of Islam to start a militant movement. The Indian Army tried to control it. However, it is difficult to control terrorism that co-exists with a civilian population (case in point: even the world’s superpowers appear unable to control IS).

  Thus, the Indian Army, and India, got a bad name in the Valley. Thus, the ‘we hate India’ slogans and the perennially unsolved Kashmir problem.

  The question is, what is the Kashmiri youth to do now? First, it is important for everyone, not just Kashmiris, to understand the area and the people involved. The J&K map we see in Indian textbooks is nothing like what exists on the ground. Half of what we see on the map has been taken over by Pakistan and China. Even though India may still claim these territories, unless we are okay with heavy civilian casualties (which we are not), we will never recover them.

  Hence, let’s just focus on the half under Indian control, which can be divided into three areas: Ladakh, Jammu, and the Valley. Most of the trouble is in the Kashmir Valley. This is only around 7 per cent of the area that Indians see on the J&K map, approximately the size of Manipur. In terms of people, it is seven million, roughly the population of Chennai.

  The terrain is rugged and the area is completely landlocked. Even if we were to indulge the argument that India is a terrible country and so Kashmir Valley should be on its own, can you really build a sustainable country out of this region? It will be a tiny stub of a state in a troubled area, abused by both India and Pakistan. With no real economy and extreme dependence on its giant neighbours, it risks becoming a cesspool of terrorism, drugs and smuggling.

  There is also a risk of Kashmir being taken over by fundamentalist Islamic forces, if it separates. It is unlikely that any foreign investors would put their money in such a dangerous place. There would be no jobs and no safety. Would you want to live there? Ditto, if it joins Pakistan. India is seen as a major emerging market economy. Pakistan is not even seen as a real economy.

  Another issue is women’s rights. Half of the Valley’s people are women. Given the hold of fundamentalist Islam, their rights would be curbed under both the independent Kashmir and Pakistan options. This half of the population would be better off with India. Or does what women want not matter?

  If you are Kashmiri and care for Kashmir, the best option for you is to integrate with India. Your population is small, only around seven million. It is not impossible to unite them and create a group of people that talks real business with the Indian government. Your local politician won’t talk assimilation, as he or she would rather hold more power than in a typical state government in India. However, for you, the youth, the best bet is to help make the Valley truly a part of India.

  The rest of India should not ask for the removal of Article 370. The seven million people in the Valley should. The Kashmiri Pandits who were forced to leave the Valley need to be brought back. Terrorism is no solution, nor a
n adequate means of revenge and retribution for Indian atrocities. Terrorism harms people in the Valley, above all.

  So, the need of the hour is for the youth in the Valley to start a movement to solve this problem. Get rid of Article 370. It does not empower Kashmir. It is only empowering your local politicians, who can do nothing for you without the cooperation of the Indian state.

  Don’t blame the Indian Army. It has the tough job of weeding out terrorists from a civilian population, which is almost impossible to do without collateral damage, terrible as that might be. However, blame those truly responsible—the Pakistani Army, the local leaders who exploited the situation, and the experts who did nothing for you.

  Don’t burst crackers when India loses. Don’t feel good when India fails. Because, if India fails, you will fail too.

  Jai Hind. Jai Kashmir.

  Concluding Thoughts: Staying India Positive

  I have written about Indian economy, society, politics and youth issues for over ten years now. This decade is also the period over which we have experimented with various kinds of governments and leaders. Over these ten years, while my writing on issues that concern the nation continues, I am also gradually shifting focus to the subject of the self-development of the individual. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the two go hand in hand. The system must be improved slowly, but the self-improvement of citizens is an essential step in progressing as a country.

  Suggesting how we can help our country develop and keep our governments accountable will continue to be important. Democracy, when left unchecked, can go haywire. We as citizens have to stay alert to that.

  But while we patiently wait for the big changes, India’s youth also need to focus within and continue to develop themselves to counter the shortcomings of the system.