Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

THE foreign minister’s realisation that the Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, ‘might have stepped out of line’ in his remarks at a seminar in the capital on June 21 may be belated but is welcome nonetheless. Also, her explanation as to why, despite being present at the seminar, she did not respond to Pinak’s comments – ‘I don’t think it is prudent on the part of a foreign minister to respond to comments of a diplomat’ – tends to indicate that she may have finally begun to realise the gravity and prestige of the post that she holds. Disappointingly though, she tried to pass her criticism of the Indian high commissioner as a ‘personal opinion’. What she apparently overlooked is the fact that when a foreign minister makes a comment in public it ceases to be a personal view and becomes the view of the government that s/he represents. It follows then that, when the foreign minister says the Indian high commissioner ‘might have stepped out of line in his remarks that day’, her words encapsulate the sentiment of the entire government. Naturally, then, it is expected that the government will do what the government of a sovereign state would do in such circumstances – it should ask New Delhi to recall Chakravarty immediately.
   The Awami League-led government does appear increasingly fractured on the controversial Indian plan to construct a dam on the river Barak at Tipaimukh in Assam, some 200 kilometres upstream of the Bangladesh border. At one end, several members of the cabinet have publicly proclaimed their faith in Delhi’s assurance that the proposed dam would not harm Bangladesh in any away and that there might actually be benefit for Bangladesh to be had from the dam. At the other end, at least two cabinet members voiced, in public, their opposition to the controversial project – one on Wednesday and the other before the AL-led government came to power. Also on Wednesday, at the same function, three parliamentarians of the ruling alliance also demanded that the government should take immediate actions to stop construction of the Tipaimukh dam. Thus far, the prime minister and the foreign minister have taken the middle road in the debate and insisted that the government will make its decision in this regard on the basis of the findings and recommendations of a team of parliamentarians and experts due to visit Tipaimukh soon and in the best interest of the country.
   Divergence of views is the signature of democratic governance, and it is indeed refreshing that such an issue of national interest as Tipaimukh is debated in different public forums, with the parliamentarians of the ruling alliance joining in, both in favour and against. However, with regard to the remarks of the Indian high commissioner, there is hardly any space for such divergence, for those were not only disrespectful of the country’s leading water experts but also indicative of the Indian establishment’s inclination to arm-twisting the Bangladesh into submission to its whims and wishes. Hence, the AL administration needs to publicly condemn the remarks and ask its Indian counterpart to immediately recall Chakravarty; failure to do so would only be perceived as its unwillingness or inability to exercise the authority befitting the government of a sovereign state.

Sadly familiar tale of faulty
traffic management

NEARLY 12,000 out of 15,000 buses that ply the streets of the capital Dhaka are unfit to run although they have the required fitness certificate and route permits from the relevant authorities, so says a report published in New Age on Thursday. The report says the bus operators allegedly secure their papers through forgery and bribes without ever having to go through proper inspection of the vehicles. The report also quotes a senior traffic police official as saying that they do seize faulty buses but eventually let most of those go after filing cases with nominal fees ‘due to lack of dumping space’.
   It is alleged that the traffic police exercise traffic laws in a rather lax manner in case of passenger buses because they collect regular tolls from the bus operators and thus are expected to provide preferential services. While it might be the case that citizens, however grudgingly, have come to accept it as a norm that passenger buses are not in fully functional state, it is hardly acceptable. The report points out that thousands of buses do not have functioning back lights, brake lights or indicators. That would quite likely be the case since they do not appear for inspection in the first place. While passengers hardly question such details, it is perhaps presumed that passenger buses are otherwise functional. A more thorough examination, however, might well find that many of these buses do not go through the kind of maintenance required and many actually pose grave danger to the public. For instance they might well turn out to have not just faulty brake lights, but faulty brakes as well.
   There have been numerous accidents in the past where bus drivers have pleaded faulty brakes or some other mechanical failure for the mishap. But it is not just the pedestrians whose lives these buses threaten. They are also a risk to the hundreds of thousands of commuters that ride these buses every day. This is nothing short of a public hazard. It would also be very difficult, if not downright impossible and impractical, to ban all these buses overnight and expect these to be repaired to fully functional condition overnight. But it is certainly a responsibility of the government to take stern action against a handful of errant buses with the more serious malfunctions and charge them heavy fines. There should be special teams specifically charged with random inspection of buses. In order to implement such a decision there must also be strong some reforms within the police administration to stop the underhand deals that they are alleged to have with the bus operators.

THAT several hundred students of the Home Economics College on June 24 brought out a procession on the Dhaka University campus, pressing home their six-point demand including turning the college into an institute under Dhaka University is a matter not to be lost sight of so easily. According to a report published in New Age on June 25, classes and scheduled in-course examinations of the Home Economics College remained suspended as the authorities on Tuesday announced indefinite closure of the college after the students, in protest at police action, damaged a number of classrooms.
   It will be quite easy to comprehend the situation if we, first, enumerate the cardinal features of their demands to find out whether they are justifiable or not. These are turning the college into an institute under Dhaka University, distribution of certificates on the basis of the subjects of their study after exams, appointment of an adequate number of teachers on the basis of the college curriculum, arrangement of a sufficient number of classrooms, a developed seminar room, a library replete with books, journals and modern facilities, a canteen, a common room and a computer lab. Now a glimpse at these demands will definitely dispel any doubt about the logic behind the students’ movement. It is anybody’s knowledge that these demands are a prerequisite for turning an academic institution into a full-fledged establishment to ensure a congenial environment conducive to studies. To begin with their demand for turning the college into an institute under Dhaka University, we must discuss when and how the college came into being and its objectives.
   The Home Economics College was established in 1961 with the objective of imparting higher education to women. Since its inception, it has been deprived of the government initiatives that were needed to develop it into a modern, time-befitting institute, although over the years home economics as a subject has buttressed itself making it relevant to various social aspects including gender issues, women’s empowerment, women’s reproductive issues, HIV/AIDS, intervention projects for families in distress and other human rights issues. This college, which was established for women in accordance with a parochial idea stemming from a patriarchal mindset of the community, has trudged a long way, weathering vicissitudes of fortune. Now, home economics, as a subject, has also burgeoned into different branches of knowledge, opening up new vistas of avenues for exploration to ensure social justice. But in our country students are finding it increasingly difficult to conduct researches in the hitherto unknown branches in the absence of a library, a laboratory and a computer lab. This is precluding them not only from enriching themselves but also from bequeathing a rich legacy of learning to posterity.
   As is evident in this case, this college is under the direct administrative control of the government, while its curricula and exams are being administered and controlled by Dhaka University. It is axiomatic that this dual-control does not bode well for an institution as differences of opinions often crop up between the controlling authorities while taking decisions on important issues for the development of the college, impeding the development works intended for the students. Although students of this college are badly in need of a laboratory, a computer lab and a modern library abounding with related books and journals, the authorities are failing to take substantive decisions in this regard because of differences of opinions coming from dual controls over the college. Against this backdrop of events, the demands of the students, it seems, do not sound inane or illogical. As the first step, meeting their demand for turning the college into an institute under Dhaka University may break the stalemate as it will, eventually, relieve the institute of the dual controls by the government and the university, and set a train of events in motion to address the other demands.
   Although the authorities promised to turn it into an institute of Dhaka University a few years back, it has never been implemented. This kind of shirking from commitments on the part of the authorities is indicative of a supercilious indifference to the students of the Home Economics College. It has been learnt that both the government and the Dhaka University authorities are dillydallying in addressing the issues of the college, shifting their responsibilities to one another, resulting in a standoff.
   Now let us discuss the importance of home economics as a subject. Home economics as a subject was looked down upon and never thought to be fit for studying by male students in the past as it used to deal with mainly the domestic affairs of a family, namely childcare, healthcare, family management, etc. But now the subject’s demand and scope, across the globe, have transcended the barriers constituted by the bigoted views of the male chauvinistic mindset of the community. With the passage of time, this subject has expanded its areas of research and study, with the inclusion of gender issues, women’s empowerment, women’s reproductive issues, HIV/AIDS, intervention projects for families in distress and other human rights issues.
   Nowadays, the subject is named family and consumer science or economics and management of the home and community. In most of the countries, the communities have shed off the discriminatory approach to the subject of home economics and both male and female students are studying it with great gusto in many other countries, noticing the positive impact their study can leave on their community as a whole. That with extensive researches in its different branches home economics has earned a worldwide reputation and recognition is clearly evidenced in the emergence of the International Federation for Home Economics, an international forum of home economists. Having a consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC, FAO, UNESCO, UNISEF), this federation has been working on social conventions as a cultural legacy, social needs and current social systems since its emergence in 1908. We should not forget that it was the home economics professionals who were instrumental to instituting the 1994 International Year of the Family and that in doing so they focused on ‘family’ as a political issue, a new phenomenon in the study of social science.
   These events clearly demonstrate the success and achievements by the home economics professionals in other countries, while in the absence of adequate government support and a full-fledged faculty the students of the same subject in our country are lagging behind as they are failing to keep abreast of the recent developments in the study. That the authorities including the government of our country are yet to shake off their discriminatory approach towards those who are studying the subject has been manifested in their disdain with which they are dealing with the demands of the students. One can only hope that good sense will prevail in the authorities and that they will be jolted into action breaking this languor to meet the demands of the Home Economics College students in order to give them a healthy atmosphere for studies and scopes to obtain PhD, MPhil and other higher degrees, and thereby equip them with adequate knowledge so that they can work for the amelioration of the society and leave behind an indelible impression on our community.

WITH the advent of the Obama administration, a debate rages on whether America loves India – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made amply clear to George W Bush Indians’ love for him. Two kinds of doubt have surfaced: the United States has downgraded India in its order of priorities and the old policy of hyphenation of New Delhi with Islamabad is back in vogue in Washington.
   These Indian fears reveal the country’s tunnel vision and propensity to forget the lessons of the past. Any unbiased observer would have perceived that given the problems left over by the Bush administration — two wars and economic meltdown — India was a low priority for the Obama administration for good reasons.
   President Obama had made the war in Afghanistan his own, in contrast to Iraq, and lavished much attention and money on Pakistan because it was considered essential to the outcome of the war. Second, as has been mournfully clear over the decades, Washington’s penchant for seeking short-term advantage plays havoc with its own longer-term goals.
   It has been so in the arming of Pakistan during the Cold War, Washington turning a blind eye to Islamabad’s covert efforts to build the bomb, helping Pakistan’s spy agency with sticky fingers, the Inter-Services Intelligence, in routing arms and money for the anti-Soviet campaign and, until recently, giving Pakistan the benefit of the doubt in dealing with the Taliban. It is thus little surprise that the US should now treble its assistance to Islamabad proverbially to win the hearts and minds of the people.
   That said, India continues to display a sense of insecurity in its pecking order in Washington. During her campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, now the secretary of state, had said that China was the most important relationship of her country. So it is on many counts, given the Chinese economy, its breakneck military modernisation and the economic and financial cards Beijing has up its sleeve.
   It is equally true that India remains an important country for the US for strategic, economic and ideological reasons. True, those in positions of power in the Obama administration were less than enthusiastic about the terms of the seminal Indo-US nuclear treaty. But there is no indication that Washington will renege on it although it will continue to pursue its non-proliferation goals. Indeed, one of the justifications former President Bush had given for the treaty was that it would help the cause of non-proliferation.
   But India must accept the fact that Pakistan has been phenomenally successful in using its geographical location, religious affiliation and willingness to fight for American causes to extract money and arms from Washington. That Pakistan has traditionally used the American largesse for arming itself against India is no secret in Washington — in Krishna Menon’s memorable phrase, guns have not been invented that can fire only in one direction. US compulsions flow from its overriding priority to vanquish the al-Qaeda and the ‘bad Taliban’; so if Islamabad chooses to strengthen its war machine against India in the process of ostensibly serving American aims, so be it.
   That the Obama administration has been less than fully focused on its relations with India should be taken as a compliment. India has reached a measure of political stability, particularly after the last general election, its neighbours and many other parts of the developing world can envy. And it has been clear even during the Bush administration that India must fight its own battle against terrorists, infiltrating from Pakistan or the home-grown variety, on its soil. The US will offer New Delhi help in intelligence and in tracking tainted money but the American goal remains the safeguarding of its citizens and country from terrorists.
   Apart from implementing the nuclear treaty — a process stretching to several years — there are wide areas of Indo-US cooperation. The defence relationship is growing exponentially, areas of world trade and finance are fertile soil and India has much to contribute to the phenomenal growth in information technology, biotechnology and stem cell research. The India-Pakistan relationship will remain troubled and US approaches to Islamabad will impinge upon it, but New Delhi must learn to mitigate the harmful effects without crying blue murder each time.
   Despite Mr Bush’s democracy crusade, the concept has proved a weak reed as a basis of relations. Washington’s alliances with dictators in various garbs around the world are no secret. America is famously subject to the competing pulls of Wilsonian and Jacksonian precepts embodying idealism and realpolitik.
   Most US presidents have taken bits of both until Mr Bush tipped the scale in favour of giving itself the right of pre-emptive strikes against any nation of its choice.
   The Obama administration is more inclined to use soft power and is guided by the compulsions of realpolitik. The only goal that does not change, whatever the stripe of the presidency, is Washington’s desire to remain the greatest.
   The moral of the story is that India must hone its skills to fight for the country’s interests while cultivating good relations with the pre-eminent power and a host of other competing powers seeking a place in the sun. New Delhi’s interests do not always converge with Washington’s, but that should not be a cause for concern. Inter-state relations have become a more complex power play, with each country seeking to maximise its room for manoeuvre.
   Apart from strategic and economic reasons, Indo-US relations are bound to grow in view of the nature of people-to-people relations, the increasingly influential Indian-American community and the enmeshing of millions of Indian families in the lives and fortunes of their kinsmen and women who have made their home in the US. The flow of Indian students to American universities remains undiminished.
   The Clinton visit next month will set a marker in the Obama administration’s interaction with India, but it would be foolish to exaggerate its importance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s expected call at the White House in the autumn will be a better touchstone for defining the texture of the relationship with President Obama.