TRIBUTE TO DR. MANMOHAN SINGH

Deeply Mourn the demise of our former Prime Minister Prof. Manmohan Singh – A Reputed Academic and a very Distinguished Politician

It is with profound grief I pay my respectful Homage to one of the distinguished leaders of our Nation!  Irrespective of my differences with Dr. Manmohan Singh in terms of some of the policies that he prescribed during his Prime Ministership, I held him in very high esteem and will continue to do so.  Those of us who studied in JNU in the mid 2000 will never forget Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the University on 14 November 2005 to unveil the statue of former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and a group of students disrupting his speech with black flags waving & sloganeering to express dissent.  Prof. Manmohan Singh was the second Prime Minister to visit JNU after Indira Gandhi. I was a PhD student in JNU between 2003 and 2007 and I am proud to be an alumnus of JNU where Dr. Manmohan Singh was an Honorary Professor.  I was very much present in the audience during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s speech on 14 November 2005 and witnessed closely the ‘black flag waving and sloganeering’ of some of my contemporaries. The days before the Prime Minister’s visit, various student political outfits including the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) on campus seriously debated and discussed the question whether to welcome the Prime Minister or oppose him because the large section of the students on campus were unhappy with his Government’s economic policies which most of us believed would reinforce economic inequalities in the country.  Initially, most of the student political outfits agreed to protest.  However, just a few days before the PM’s visit, except a couple of outfits, all other outfits including JNUSU decided not to protest against the PM.  We were all under the impression that the protest will be limited to putting up posters and black flags all over the campus. But what surprised us on that day was that the moment the Prime Minister rose to speak, some of my fellow students suddenly got up, took out the black flags hidden in their dress and started waving and sloganeering. The Prime Minister was taken aback, paused his speech for a few minutes and appealed to the protesting students to maintain calm. The other dignitaries like the then Union External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh who were present on the dais also made an attempt to pacify the protesting students.  Their appeal did not stop the sloganeering students; hence the Prime Minister decided to continue with his speech. But the sloganeering continued till the end of his speech. This event turned out to be the big national and international news of the day.  After the event, JNU teaching fraternity became gravely concerned because protesting against the Prime Minister would obviously lead to punitive action by the University administration that may jeopardize the students’ career and life.  Some of the teachers who were students in JNU during emergency in India faced punitive actions for rising their voice against emergency and the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.  In one of the following days of 14 November 2005 event, I had a meeting with my PhD supervisor to discuss my work. At that time, my PhD supervisor was a Member of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), and he would often meet the Prime Minister officially to discuss the Commission’s work. Sensing my political activism on campus, in the course of our discussion, my supervisor suddenly asked me, “Selvam, did you also protest against the Prime Minister on that day?” I replied, “No Sir, I did not; I was present there listening to the Prime Minister but did not protest”. Now, as the teachers feared, the University administration swiftly issued show cause notices to those students who protested.  Nonetheless, to our utter disbelief, the day after the protest, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called up the then Vice-Chancellor Prof. B B Bhattacharya and advised him to be lenient with the students and not to take any action against those who protested as protesting was their democratic right.  That was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh!  I was deeply moved by his gracious act which indeed exhibited the compassionate teacher in the Prime Minister and his profound belief in democratic values. His commitment to democratic values, personal integrity, humility, scholarship, and academic honesty are something that I have always admired! He maintained the dignity of the office of the Prime Minister of our country. The historical acts like Right to Information Act (RTI), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and the National Food Security Act (NSFA) that were passed in Parliament during his tenure were truly watershed moments! His departure is an irreparable loss to our Nation, and he will be missed forever!

In solidarity with our Nation mourning the demise of one of the greatest and distinguished leaders of our times…

Goodbye Prof. Singh.  Rest in Peace! 🌹🙏😢

With deep Condolences and Respectful Homage!

Selvam

Friday, 27 December 2024

Death of Democracy in Tamil Nadu!?

Yes, it appears so! What transpired in Tamil Nadu’s Legislative Assembly during the confidence motion is reflective of the culmination of unethical and undemocratic practices in Tamil Nadu’s politics in the recent times.  If ethics was anything to go by, all the sitting MLAs of the ruling party in Tamil Nadu would have resigned on moral grounds respecting and accepting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict on disproportionate assets case in which their party Ex-Supremo and former Chief Minister was unequivocally convicted but the criminal case against her was abated as she is no more.  But who cares! Time and again it is demonstrated that ‘ethics and politics’ are poles apart! The ruling political parties or opposition parties or any political party for that matter, may take advantage of the constitutional flexibility to make their actions and reactions look like democratic but do they reflect the real ‘will’, ‘wish’, and ‘decision’ of the people is the question that we have been debating for quite some time now.  Disorder in the State Assemblies and Indian Parliament is not new and sadly we the people have got used to such ill-practices that never allowed any meaningful constructive dialogue or debate on vital issues concerning people’s lives and livelihoods.  If the debate has to be constructive, it must necessarily consider the ‘voice of dissent’ or ‘voice of the opposition’ as such a consideration is the fulcrum of a democracy to remain healthy.  What keeps bothering the conscience driven citizens is that the denial of such space most often even in the Legislative Assemblies.  The latest example is the rejection of the demand for ‘secret ballot’ in the recently and hurriedly held confidence motion in the Tamil Nadu’s Legislative Assembly. The Speaker of the house could have considered the demand keeping in view the ‘extraordinary political situation’ coupled with the allegation that the sitting MLAs of the ruling party were kept captives and under duress.  It is logical to believe that in a supposedly highly vulnerable situation like this, MLAs going against the party high command and openly opposing the motion is impossible even for the conscience driven MLAs fearing expulsion from the party or other sever consequences.  This is where the ‘secret ballot’ assumes significance as it weakens the ‘risk and threat’ factors. Perhaps, that is the reason why Parliamentary, Assembly and Local Body elections in India are held in secret ballot mode.  In the present context, had the Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly considered the demand for secret ballot, he would have done well to avert the whole crisis that ensued after his rejection and proved that he was unbiased although he belongs to the ruling dispensation!  However, by rejecting a genuine demand of the opposition during the motion in the Assembly, he tolled the death knell for a democratic practice even before it was hatched!  It is worth recalling what the historian and philosopher Lord Acton said once, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that of the party...that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

MGNREGA in the Union Budget 2014-15: Some Critical Observations!

At times the elected governments seem to either deliberately ignore the scientific evidences or do not take the necessary inputs into consideration when they set the priorities of the nation in the budget.  The pronouncement by the Finance Minister Mr. Jaitley in his maiden budget speech to link MGNREGA with more productive assets creation and agriculture is something bereft of an understanding of the village dynamics and ground realities.  At least the government could have waited for the results of the ongoing nation wide Evaluation Study of the MGNREGA that the Planning Commission is conducting through ten reputed research institutions across the country. 

I was part of the Evaluation Study Team in the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala which was assigned the task of conducting the study in the four major southern States of India.  A few Institutes including CDS have already submitted the draft report to the Planning Commission and the others will be doing it soon. The Finance Minister’s proposal to revamp MGNREGA is premature and the following facts that emanated from our field study may perhaps enlighten him:  (i) The demand to link MGNREGA with agriculture is basically the lobby of big and medium farmers; (ii) Most of the landlords we interviewed felt that it was hard for them to tolerate the once deprived have-nots becoming financially empowered and some of them openly said, “how could we see these lower caste fellows holding five hundred rupee notes in front of us”.  This was one of the reasons for them to openly oppose MGNREGA implementation in some villages; (iii) Many of the big farmers were candid in accepting the fact that their agricultural activities were affected by factors like monsoon failure, rapid urbanisation, and industrialisation and NOT by MGNREGA implementation.  As a result of these factors, the ‘skilled’ labourers migrated to towns and cities looking for better employment opportunities and only a few stayed back in their respective villages and opted to work in MGNREGA; (iv) The non-availability of ‘skilled’ labourers for agricultural activities is a major concern in rural areas and almost all the agricultural land owners wanted MGNREGA workers to work in their field and suggested that the Government must amend the law to enable the workers to work in their private land;  (v) On the other hand, most of the unskilled workers employed in MGNREGA, unanimously said that they would prefer to work in government schemes rather than working in private agricultural lands under exploitative conditions.  The facts (iii) and (v) clearly point to the sad ground reality that the feudal thinking and casteism are still strong in the villages.  In such a scenario, how is it that the Finance Minister proposes to supply MGNREGA workers for private work without any mechanism that would keep the exploitative practices of the greedy land owners at bay?   This is a very serious and sensitive question which needs to be handled sensibly.  Any move by the Government should be cautious and should never allow anything that would reinforce existing caste/class hierarchy and conflict in the life of village community.

The other important point to be noted from the above observations is that the activities of productive asset creations and agriculture require reasonable levels of skill which the poor workers currently employed in MGNREGA obviously do not posses.  This fact needs to be seen in light of the objective of the Act itself.  The MGNREGA is pretty clear on this, that is, the objective of the Act is to ensure 100 days of wage employment to those poor rural household members who are willing to do ‘unskilled work’ given to them in a financial year.  Remember MGNREGA provides ‘unskilled’ work for those unskilled persons.  There is absolutely nothing illogical or wrong in the proposal to link MGNREGA with the skill driven productive asset creations and agricultural activities especially at a time when India’s agriculture sector’s performance is abysmally low.  However, such a move would call for a thorough understanding of the skill levels of rural workforce and introduce a programme to build the capacity or skill of the otherwise unskilled poor rural household members.  Further, if the Government is serious in reviving agriculture in the country and village economy, the Finance Minister must have come out with a clear cut strategy and bigger incentives for the skilled agricultural labourers to retain them back in their traditional profession.  Instead, Mr. Jaitley went on to announce 20 new industrial clusters and 100 mega city projects.  Well, nothing wrong again! However, it would have been a balancing act, had he come out with a ‘100 mega village revival’ project. That would have really been a radical employment generation move.       

When all is said and done, the Government, before revamping MGNREGA or attempting to do anything with the Act, must wait for the final report of the National Evaluation Study of the MGNREGA, seriously consider the results of the report, and call for a nation wide debate on an Act that was not a gift of the previous UPA regime but a hard won livelihood security by the pro poor citizens of this country.  I must add from the findings of our evaluation study in the four southern Indian States that the implementation of MGNREGA has been largely successful and enhanced the livelihood security of the unskilled workers in rural areas.  To a great extent, the implementation has financially empowered the poor especially women.  When the ground reality is positive, why would the government revamp an Act that reflects the will of the people?         

On Union Budget 2013-14

 Following is my brief comment on the Union Budget 2013-14 that The Hindu carried in its Letters to the Editor column on Friday, March 01, 2013

Populist and cautious are the words I would use to describe the Union budget 2013-14. Mr. Chidambaram has introduced a number of schemes to accommodate the interests of large sections of the middle class and the poor. However, the revenue side has cast a shadow of darkness. Taxing the rich and helping the poor is absolutely fine but the strategy to generate revenue to fund many of the programmes and contain fiscal deficit is vague. The Panchayati Raj Institutions have got nothing except a proposal of an additional Rs. 200 crore. This is mere tokenism. Unfortunately, the priorities spelt out in the budget do not take us closer to decentralisation.

V. Selvam,

Puducherry

Unhappy!

I stand COMPLETELY UNHAPPY at this point of time, say at the beginning of the year 2013! 

We began the year 2012 with much fanfare, jubilation, and greeting each other happiness, prosperity, and good health.  But unfortunately, the end of 2012 looked as if it had the right to dash all our wishes and happiness. 

What a turbulent and painful year it was-the year filled with all sorts of ugly, cruel, nasty and unpleasant events!  What do these events reflect? They reflect the fact that our society is still largely uncivilised and the minority civilised in our society collectively and miserably failed to protect the women and vulnerable from the barbaric acts of the uncivilised. This goes without saying that our political elites historically failed to ‘gender sensitise people’ resulting in rapes and violence against women. 

Although I stand completely unhappy at the beginning of 2013, I do hope and wish that this year will be free from such barbaric acts.  Yes, I understand that the hopes and wishes attain their real meaning only when every one of us in the society makes conscious and concerted efforts. Now the moot question is whether we are ready to put in such efforts to make our system free from violence and exploitation of the vulnerable! If yes, then I will wait till the end of this year to see if I am still unhappy!        

Selvam Velangani Manickam

Is There an Innovative Way of Motivating Students to Read Literature?

Yes, there is!  This is what Ruby Davaseeli, an English Professor, and her team of undergraduate Students in Bharathidasan Women’s College Puducherry proved.  Before we proceed to know how they did, it may be of interest to throw some light on the vital but often neglected question-whether reading literature helps build character in students and makes them more humane.  The answer is, yes it does! Many great philosophers, educationists, and writers have emphasised reading as a necessary tool to build character and instil moral values in students. The philosopher Francis Bacon wrote, “Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.” Another writer and Nobel laureate William Faulkner said, “Read, read, read. Read everything-trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master.” And, “Read Every Day. Lead a Better Life,” insisted the Global Literacy Campaign. 

What we understand form these quotes is that reading has its own positive influence in our minds and actions. If so, then what influence does reading literature have on humans? The answer is simple: Reading literature makes the ‘humans humane’! Literature is a societal mirror. It captures and reflects the society in its entirety-society’s way of life, morals, ethics, emotions, sentiments, goodness, shortcomings, love, hatred, anger, jealousy, power struggle, revenge…and everything. Looking ourselves at the mirror helps us to correct our appearance.  Similarly, reading literature helps us to understand the culture of humanity and its multiple dimensions which would sensitise us to many of the human problems. Such an understanding of and sensitivity to human problems is what makes us more humane.           

If reading is such a powerful medium then we may ask another question-whether the students in the contemporary world are trained and exposed to variety of readings including literature.  The answer is an unfortunate no! The Annual Survey of Education Report (ASER), 2011 brings out a disturbing fact that the learning ability of children has declined in India. For instance, the percentage of children in standard V who were able to read standard II text books declined from 53.7 percent in 2010 to 48.2 per cent in 2011 across the country.  Although this evidence is not directly related to our arguments here, it does point to an alarming situation in the country side that large chunk of our school children cannot read their textbook through, let alone reading and comprehending literary books!  What about the modern young graduates then? Do they have interest in reading literature?  Sadly, not many have interest in it.  It is worth recalling a few examples reported in Times of India, October 13, 2008, Patna edition.  In an interview, when asked to name a novel by an Indian author he recently read, the candidate an English Literature graduate, openly admitted that he had read none.  Another example-in a written examination, the candidates were asked to tick the name of the author of Letters from A Father to His Daughter. It seems most of the candidates failed to tick Jawaharlal Nehru as the correct answer.  The news paper report also observed that the reason for declining reading habit of the young generation was due to increasing obsession with visual medium like television and internet.       

Now let us get back to the question we raised in the beginning, “Is there an innovative way of motivating students to read literature?” Yes, there is! The way is story telling through the exhibition of artefacts depicting the literary works of great poets, dramatists, and novelists!  This is what Ruby Davaseeli and her team of undergraduate English literature Students did in their college premises in the first week of October 2012.  The literary event attracted college students, teachers and people from different walks of life.  Perhaps, the current trend of declining interest in reading literature among the young generation prompted Ruby to choose this innovative method of story telling through artefacts exhibition.  Roughly 210 brilliant young literature students, divided into a number of teams-each team with a story and artefact, painstakingly and charmingly explained the artefacts they themselves handmade.  It was captivating listening to the students explaining the love, hatred, anger, jealousy, power struggle, morals, ethics, sentiments, and emotions depicted in the literary works.  Immediately after the exhibition, I developed the urge to read all of the literary works exhibited, though I read many of them in my school and college days.  I am sure, like me, many visitors would have felt the same urge to read or revisit them. Such is the power of visual medium.  Like the way the movies The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter ignited the passion in many viewers to read the fictions after watching the movies.

In the era of declining interest in reading, an innovative and constructive initiative of literary artefacts exhibition like this, though symbolic, deserves wholehearted appreciation and support.  Such creative events would go a long way in triggering the passion for reading in the modern young minds.  

Well Done Ruby and Team, Keep it up…!

 

Selvam Velangani Manickam