Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The education scenario has come a long way since the early 1990s when the whole private university scenario was enveloped in uncertainty. As far as this writer can remember, one of the best private universities at the moment was housed in a small house back then with the office being run by a handful of men. At that time, the office which literally didn't inspire much was in no way indicative of the fact that one day the whole country would be right in the middle of a private university boom. But, like many other things in Bangladesh, namely the apartment, the mobile and the currently on-going satellite channel craze the private university phenomenon did not fizzle out; on the contrary, these establishments have reduced a lot of pressure on public institutes though when it comes to admission, the first preference for many are still the public universities.
   But, though the number of universities has multiplied at a phenomenal speed in the last decade, stunning the most liberal of education specialists and perhaps, disproving all laws relating to education there is now a big question mark behind the universities, their motives and the kind of education they are offering. In the last few weeks the country has seen a series of agitation programmes by university students and these events happening all around the country have brought the whole issue of private universities in focus.
   In truth, the trouble had been brewing for quite some time. About a year ago a lot of complaints were voiced over the standard of education that was on offer and several institutes were singled out for their rather 'dodgy' image. The accusations included misuse of the names of reputed teachers to lure students, absence of a proper curriculum, false declarations of links with well-known foreign universities and so on. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that about 18 months ago recommendations were made for the closure of 8 universities; unfortunately the recommendations still exist on paper and have not been put to action.
   Of course, the whole situation needs to be looked at from the perspective of the students too because they are the ones who stand to lose the most. In an age of intense competition where a good education is de rigueur to land a job and ensure the much coveted social niche, it's the universities that literally hold the destiny of a student. And, when that destiny is juggled and fooled around with, the result is likely to end up in chaos. And chaos it was when students of Stamford University went on rampage protesting abrupt rise of fees, lack of proper facilities and failure of the university to get approval of a department from the UGC. The complication might have brought Stamford to the forefront but many other private universities are also accused of similar faults.
   In many cases students are lured into an academic institution with the promise that should they wish to go abroad their credits would be transferred. These institutions also publicise links with institutions in Canada, UK and Australia and hence take admission of a large number of students who harbour a desire to transfer credit to a foreign university and move to another country. Reportedly, quite a few institutions sprang up in the Gulshan area for the sole purpose of sending students abroad. In this light, they can be compared to unscrupulous student counselling centres which run a roaring commercial operation in the city. Capitalising on the gullibility of students, these universities give admission though in many cases they do not even have proper class rooms. It is also reported that students are taken under a certain programme and later on, if that programme cannot be sustained due to lack of teachers the students in question are forced to take up some other discipline. Naturally, the core motive here in the part of the university has been to make easy money
   But, as we look at the unscrupulous and selfish use of education for commercial purposes, we are also compelled to address a general sense of unrest and impatience that have gripped students in general. Students protest because they have been wronged in some way but our question is: why were they wronged in the first place?
   In the case of dubious private universities if the authority had been strict and if all private universities were kept under constant probe then irregularities could have been averted and along with those, the eventual spill out of student frustration. Sadly, it appears that, often, education at private universities is not under surveillance and teachers who are appointed are not trained. Interestingly, there is a trend to use foreigners to attract students and this works simply because there is a belief that a fair skin person talking in English will make more sense.
   Somehow, with so much happening in the education sector, we feel that a large segment involved in this sector is fuelling a cleverly devised hoax promising a lot but delivering little. And, as the cat cannot be kept in the bag for long, the truth has now come out much to the discredit of the authority that was supposed to oversee a systematic branching of education. For the time being we may be concentrating on university education but, the malaise of anomalies also affect public schools and the coaching centres.
   So, in that light it would not be incorrect to state that the whole education system is on a very precarious journey. And, to revert that we must act now and with urgency. To start, there must be a yearly survey of all private universities and that would also include taking the opinion of students because statistics on paper mean little in a country where fiddling with numbers is quite common. On top of that, the government must start a system of selecting top ten private universities. This list of local Ivy League will include institutions that will meet all the relevant criteria, score high in the fields of student teacher ratio, academic facilities, extra-curricular activities and result. Understandably, the introduction of such a list would work as a motivator and push all the universities to excel. Lastly, shady institutions with opaque infrastructures and questionable objectives must be closed down.
   From the perspective of social behaviour, we also think that students need to practise a little more restraint because students lashing out against authorities through senseless destruction has now become quite common and this does not set a good example for the generation that is growing up. From a purely psychological viewpoint this tendency towards blind devastation will only give us a stressed out nation wanting solution through violence only. And, mindless violence can never be an answer; merely a catalyst for more anarchy.
   The writer is Feature Editor, New Age

The European Parliament's resolution on Sri Lanka has set the stage for the listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organization with several sanctions that will accompany the listing. The LTTE had ample warning of what was to come, especially after they were subjected to a travel ban last year by the European Union. But instead of changing their behaviour the LTTE blamed the international community for being misled by Sri Lankan propaganda and for being biased. Their chief negotiator Anton Balasingham's accusation against the EU for being biased and seeking to impose an unfair and untimely ban is in keeping with the LTTE's lack of self criticism. The LTTE's long practice of eliminating dissent is now taking its heavy toll.
   However, the reaction within Sri Lanka itself to the proposed ban is more nuanced. This is due to an apprehension that by cornering the LTTE, the ban would be more likely to impel them to war as their means of preserving the morale of their cadre and local and international supporters. Dr Balasingham has warned that the LTTE may feel compelled to withdraw from the peace process if the ban is actually imposed, and take an individualist path. This could mean a major military attack that seeks to show the world that the international ban has not changed anything on the ground. Unless the government is able to take some very positive initiatives with respect to the peace process, a strong LTTE military reaction may be anticipated.
   Indeed, notwithstanding the EU ban, the ground reality will continue to be that a significant part of Sri Lankan territory, upwards of 10 percent, is fully under LTTE administration, replete with its courts, police and military. Further the LTTE has shown itself capable of launching deadly guerrilla attacks on the Sri Lankan military and also on civilian targets, which the government can only try and defend against. Therefore, after the EU ban has become a reality the danger exists that the government might decide that it is an opportune time to capitalise on the LTTE's international isolation through an escalated military response of its own.
   It is not only amongst the nationalist political parties that there is the call for war. Sections of civil society are also hopeful that there could be a quick resolution of the ethnic conflict through an intense war. At this momentous time, the experience of the 20 year war of attrition that only came to an end with the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement in February 2002 should caution against reliance on a military response to the LTTE. The costs of war will be unpredictable and also very high. Instead of a quick, sharp war that will be favourable to the government, there could be a protracted conflict that will sap the life and wealth of the country.
   
   Comprehensive statement
   From a conflict resolution perspective, bans can have the downside of preventing constructive engagement between the parties involved. Conflicts are never peacefully resolved by one side cutting off ties with another, but they are often resolved through dialogue that leads to changes in attitudes and behaviours. In the event of the EU actually banning the LTTE, most of the countries involved in Sri Lanka's peace process will find it difficult to be actively involved in the peace process any more.
   On the other hand, there is no doubt that the government would be well satisfied with the ban, for which it has been campaigning for many years. In particular, the ban would vindicate the efforts of the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar whose assassination last year preceded the EU's travel ban on the LTTE. It also vindicates the strategy of restraint that has been followed by President Mahinda Rajapakse in dealing with the LTTE's aggressive military campaign. The EU ban, if it comes, will be a political and economic setback to the LTTE of a hitherto unprecedented proportion, as the EU is not a single country, but 25 of them.
   Unlike the earlier US and British bans, the EU Parliament's resolution calling for a ban has a deeply political dimension. The US ban imposed on the LTTE stated that the use of violence to promote political ends was not permissible. However, this ban did not pass any judgement on the LTTE's political goals. By way of contrast the resolution of the European Parliament states that the LTTE is not the sole representative of the Tamil people and calls on it to decommission its weapons. The political content of the EU resolution means that the LTTE cannot hope to obtain a legitimate status for itself so long as it does not undertake a major transformation in its goals and means of achieving them.
   But the ground situation will continue to remain the same for the foreseeable future. The safer, and sounder, course for the government to follow therefore will be the political one, of seeking to engage the LTTE in negotiations that take into consideration the issues raised by the European Parliament in its resolution on Sri Lanka. It is worth noting that this resolution is largely based on the main achievements of the peace process, with particular reference being made to the Oslo declaration of December 2002 on exploring a federal solution, and the Tokyo declaration of June 2003 that set out a structured sequence or road map for peace.
   
   Stopping impunity
   While the EU resolution focuses its attention on the shortcomings of the LTTE, it also contains important observations regarding the failures of the Sri Lankan government. Thus, the resolution severely condemned the high level of human rights violations committed by both the government and LTTE and the constant breaches of the Ceasefire Agreement by both sides. The resolution also stressed the need for an effective and independent investigation into all alleged human rights violations by the security forces or by armed groups. It also called on the government to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with international standards.
   The most recent report by the University Teachers for Human Rights gives details of several incidents in which civilians have been attacked or killed in horrific circumstances. The attack in the island of Kayts in which two little children one aged 4 years and the other 4 months were killed along with their parents, and the attack on the Uthayan newspaper and the killing of two of its staff members have been of particular concern in view of their occurrence within close proximity to the security forces. The failure of the government's investigations to identify the culprits has done much to alienate the people where these crimes occurred. The manner in which these attacks took place and the inaction of the security forces in those areas has led to suspicion of governmental involvement.
   If the government is to gain in credibility with the European Union and with the people in the north east it is imperative that acts of violence against civilians should cease immediately. If the government hopes to remain popular with the general population, it is imperative that the government should find a way to engage positively with the LTTE and bring down the level of violence that threatens to escalate into full scale war. The result of the second phase of the local government elections held last week do not bode well for the government. The government's performance was considerably below its performance at the first phase of local government elections held just two months ago. Voters expect governments to solve their problems, not make excuses for failures.
   There have been suggestions that the way forward is a summit meeting between President Rajapakse and LTTE leader Pirapaharan. But prior to that certain fundamentals have to be put in place, the most basic of which is an end to violence. An end to ceasefire violations is the basic requirement of parties that seek to enjoy international and domestic legitimacy. Excuses that those who commit acts of violence are outside of their control, which both the government and LTTE are presently making, will satisfy no one who is serious about a peaceful Sri Lanka. The other fundamental requirement pertains to the nature of the political solution. The parameters set out by the EU parliament contain elements that will need to be used to find a long term solution, such as respect for pluralism, human rights and eventual decommissioning of weapons.
   Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He can be reached at: jehan1@sri .lanka.net

The prison camps at Guantanamo Bay were gripped by a series of uprisings and disturbances last week which suggest a state of near revolt, it emerged yesterday (Friday).
   Reports from within the controversial detention centre in Cuba claim the base’s military commanders believe there were links between a series of suicide attempts, medical emergencies and the violent clashes between 20 inmates and guards on Thursday.
   It was ‘probably the most violent outbreak’ in the camp’s four-year history, claimed Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the detention and interrogation centre’s commander. ‘These are dangerous men and determined jihadists,’ he said.
   The base’s authorities suspect the incidents were co-ordinated and fed off each other, but one former inmate and two lawyers raised substantial doubts about the US military’s account of the disturbances.
   Moazzam Begg, the Birmingham bookshop owner released from the camp last year, said the detention cells were too closely monitored and controlled for inmates to organise a revolt so well. Clive Stafford Smith and Brent Mickum, defence lawyers who regularly visit clients in the base, said they suspected the official accounts were ‘rubbish’.
   Camp officers said the incidents began early on Thursday morning in Camp 1, when an unconscious inmate was discovered in his cell. Nearly seven hours later, another detainee was found unconscious, both from taking anti-depressants which they had not been prescribed.
   During the same period, another two men became ill –– one from an adverse reaction to his medication and a second who over-dosed, allegedly in solidarity with the two unconscious men.
   Five hours later, 10 inmates in another facility, a normally peaceful communal compound for ‘compliant’ prisoners called Camp 4, allegedly provoked a confrontation with the prison’s notorious ‘quick reaction force’. When the 10-man force arrived, the authorities claim they were confronted by detainees wielding improvised weapons made from a broken lighting tube, large fan blades, CCTV cameras which had been ripped down from walls, and metal sheeting from buildings.
   The floor of their shared bunkhouse had allegedly been slickened with urine, excrement and soapy water, leading to two guards slipping. The guards then used pepper-spray and rubber pellet shotgun blasts to subdue the detainees –– five of whom were treated for minor injuries.
   About midnight, an elderly detainee was hit with pepper spray and treated for minor injuries after inmates in another nearby camp staged a further demonstration. Several guards suffered ‘cuts, scrapes and bruises, just like a good football game,’ said Colonel Mike Burngarner, the base’s chief of detention operations.
   The authorities claim the disruption was designed to create further controversy about the camp, because inmates know Guantanamo Bay is the subject of intense legal and political controversy. Next month, the US Supreme Court is due to deliver a critical ruling on whether President Bush’s administration can legally refuse to block legal hearings for the 460 inmates now there.
   Col Burngarner told the Miami Herald that inmates believed three detainees would need to die in order to provoke a worldwide backlash intense enough to close the camp. Yesterday, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, repeated his demand for closure.
   Begg, who was seized by the CIA in Pakistan in 2002, said he was sceptical that inmates would be able to avoid the round-the-clock surveillance by CCTV cameras, foot patrols and watchtowers to make and hide weapons. Medical staff were also scrupulous about ensuring detainees swallowed their medication.
   He added that electrical equipment such as fans and cameras were normally out of reach. ‘It’s not like a Second World War prisoner of war camp where you can dig tunnels. There’s so much security, day in, day out. Everything is logged, everything is watched, everything is scheduled,’ he said.
   Stafford Smith and Mickum, who represent detainees with close ties to the UK, said these unusually detailed and immediate accounts by the US authorities confirmed the Bush administration had begun a public relations offensive to rebuild support for the camp.
   The Independent/UK, May 21, 2006