General on slippery slope….

New facts have emerged which are challenging the claims made by General VK Singh regarding his age. His contention till now was that the date entered in the UPSC form for admission to the NDA in 1965 was a typo error – since the form had been filled up by a clerk. But now there are more facts emerging that show that the General may have made many more typo errors….

The first piece of new information is that it was not only in 1965 that the General mentioned 1950 as his date of birth (when the clerk filled up the entrance form for NDA). Four years later, he repeated that date of birth in the IMA confidential dossier before being commissioned into the Indian Army (this time in his own handwriting since the dossier is a confidential one).The General now claims that he repeated the error for the sake of having consistency with the previous NDA entrance form. This would mean that the General became aware of the mistake made in the previous NDA entrance form during these four years. How did that happen? If it was a clerical error, he would have no reason to suspect that the date was wrong in the NDA entrance form right? Nothing had happened in those four years that had brought up the error to his notice.

The second piece of new information is that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by the PM had sought a “second confirmation” from the General in January 2008 before General Singh was made one of the eight commanders of the Army. The ACC had returned the file back to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) even though the MoD had in fact taken that clarification from the General. The MoD then took a second clarification from the Army HQs that the date of birth was indeed 1950. The General now claims that he was pressurized by the then General Deepak Kapoor in accepting this date – and that as a soldier he could not disregard the then General’s orders. That’s a strange interpretration of discipline!

The third piece of information is that as recently as in November 2009, the General had again reassured General Deepak Kapoor that he would stick to the 1950 commitment he had made in 2008. This was four months before he was appointed Army Chief.

Unfortunately for General Singh, these emerging facts paint a rather poor picture of his claims. It gives the impressions that there is more to it than the General is claiming – that maybe, the General has been “opportunistic” – agreeing to 1950 when it suited the need and challenging it when that became more suitable.

Unfortunately also, it appears that the General is blaming others for all his problems. First, it was the clerk who filled up the date wrong in the NDA entrance form. Then it was his boss, the General of the Army in 2008, who ordered him to continue with 1950. Then again in 2009, it was his boss who ordered him to nod his head in servile obedience. This is not the image we have of armymen. We expect many things from them – but most certainly we expect them to stand for honesty even at the cost of personal sacrifice. Here we have a situation where it appears that the General went along with all the confusion because it served his purpose then. And now he wants the date changed since it serves his purpose best now. This is hardly the kind of sacrifice and honesty we expect from our military leadership.

I had argued in my previous post on this subject a few days back that had 1951 been the date since the very beginning, the General would probably not even have become General. In a highly bureaucratic system of working – where “batch of commissioning” is the most important factor in deciding promotions – there is a world of a difference between 1950 and 1951 when the opportunity for a promotion opened up. There is many an officer of higher capability and better performance that has missed the opportunity to become General simply because another officer with a batch advantage was present at that time. Here it appears that the General preferred 1950 when being considered for the top job – thus edging past others from his peer group – but when he had achieved that goal, he’s now demanding that 1951 be considered the age.

There is no shame in the Government of India battling it out with the General in the Supreme Court. While it should ideally have been avoided, I don’t see anything wrong that the Government has done in its homework. The Government did do a second check before appointing him as the Chief. What more could it have done? It could have taken a safe approach and avoided promoting him given the controversy around his age. It chose not to do that – going by the word the army senior had given. Did it make a mistake in doing that? I don’t think so. It also tried to find an amicable settlement to the row over the last few days – but the General seemed bent on pursuing his battle.

It’s a personal battle that the General has taken to the Supreme Court and the apex court will no doubt settle the matter. By rejecting a PIL in this regard, the SC has stated clearly that this is a personal suit and there is no way a PIL can be admitted. Equally, by rejecting the views of former CJIs, the SC has sent a strong message – stob lobbying. That’s another thing we do not expect from armymen. Armymen do not go around canvassing their case.

If there is anything that is harming the morale of the troops, it is the stand being taken their biggest boss – supposedly for personal gain. The next time a soldier is laying down his life on the borders, he will think if it is all worth it at all. If his top boss can put his personal gain ahead of the country’s, why should he not do the same? If the army is about discipline, the General’s conduct certainly hasn’t set a great benchmark.

In the past, we’ve seen sections of the army having got corroded by the cancer of corruption. Now we’re seeing the spread of personal ambitions – rather than the country’s needs – taking roots. This is the time for quick and decisive action. This is the time for the SC to send an appropriate message.

The real truth is that the General has a lot of thinking and explaining to do. He has a lot of typo errors to correct, without making any more. He may well be right about his date of birth being 1951, but he will never be able to explain why he took so long to bring the matter up like this. He will never be able to explain why even four months before he was appointed General, he didn’t correct the perception. And he will never be able to explain, why four months before retirement, he has now brought this issue up. The General is on a slippery slope….

Secularism or Cowardice? Congress must answer for Rushdie’s absence….

So Salman Rushdie is not coming to Jaipur. Everyone knows the Congress didn’t want him to come, but the way it has been dressed up, it appears like he has decided himself to give the event a skip. The Congress claims to be a secular party but now it has a lot to answer. Does secularism mean agreeing with the retrograde views of one community? Why did the Booker prize winning author not have the confidence in the Indian government to come to India if the government was willing to have him here (as they claim)?

The fact is that the Congress decided to pander to the fringe elements in the Muslim community – given its need for its support in UP in the forthcoming elections. I am consciously calling it “fringe” elements because I don’t believe the larger Muslim fraternity is as orthodox and illiberal as it is made out to be. Is this the level to which politics has to drop in election times? Is this the meaning of being a secular country – that it also has to become illiberal? Wasn’t it the Congress that added the word “secular” in the preamble to the Constitution in 1976? Then why has it developed such a weak spine over the years?

In 1988, when the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress banned The Satanic Verses, that was bad enough. Just look at the list of countries where the book is banned: Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Thailand. Is this the kind of company that India wants to keep (except Singapore)? Banning books is a particularly illiberal form of behavior – attacking the basic freedom of speech and expression as it does. The courts have often ruled against such bans. For example, the Gujarat government had banned Jaswant Singh’s book: Jinnah – India, Pakistan, Independence in August 2009, but the Gujarat HC lifted the ban in December of the same year. The liberal west hardly ever bans books these days. Shouldn’t we try and adopt some of their good practices? Besides, is it now the Congress’s stand that not just the book but the author himself has been banned from India? If not, then why not allow him to come? Rushdie has written many other books – at least nine other novels, a couple of children’s books and many other articles. Surely his presence at the literature festival would have added value?

What is the Congress afraid of? Is it the SIMI threat that scared off the Congress? Are we saying that a relatively minor terror outfit – one that has been outlawed by the government of India – has the guts to pressurize it in this way? If that is the case, then what moral authority does the government of India have to take on the various threats that face the country? Rushdie himself appeared to be willing to take the risk of coming – but rather than giving him the confidence to do so, the government appears to have pushed him into changing his mind. This is really a shameful thing for India.

In the past as well, the Congress has been weak in handling such pressure tactics. When the Shiv Sena and the BJP threatened MF Hussain’s exhibitions in Mumbai and elsewhere, the Congress sat still – again unwilling to grant protection to the world renowned artist. When Hussain wanted to come back to India from his self-imposed exile, the Congress went weak kneed again – speaking in double voices about whether it wanted him to come back or not. The master artist eventually chose to immigrate to Qatar – a country with which he had no links at all. What a shame that was for secular India – that an artist thought Qatar could be more liberal than India. Is India even less liberal than such middle-eastern states?

But it’s not just the Congress’s that’s spineless. The Left parties are the same. Take the case of Taslima Nasrin, the celebrated ex-Bangladeshi author who angered the Muslims by writing the story of a Hindu girl raped by a Muslim man in Lajja. And asked for a revision of the Sharia – the Islamic religious law. That was enough for several Muslim organizations to issue a fatwa against her. Soon she was booted out of Bangladesh; her book banned there. She was forced into exile in Sweden. Ten years later she came to India, and fortunately, the Indian government gave her a visa to stay and work (unsurprisingly by the NDA government, but more on their motive later). She chose to live in Bengal – a state which has a high % of Muslims. Another controversy – and some riots in Kolkata – later and the Left government pressurized her to leave the state. Wasn’t that a cowardly act also?

Again, she went abroad. Again she returned back to India, this time to live in Delhi. How much time before the Congress develops cold feet on her case as well and asks her to leave India? There are enough threats to her and the Congress may just find it more convenient to keep their Muslim supporters happy rather than worry about the damage to the progressive fabric of the country.

It’s not that the BJP is any more liberal. While it calls for a uniform civil code in India, its liberal attitude comes out only when it is preaching to the Muslims to change their conduct. That’s why it allowed Taslima Nasrin to come and settle in India – going against Islam as she was. And when it’s convenient for the party, it prefers to forgive its own cadres. The demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Godhra massacre, the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, the support for alleged saffron terrorists in so many cases are all trademarks of the Hindutva policies of the BJP. Just as much as the Congress and the Left are anti-secular at times, so is the BJP is as well.

The real truth is that disallowing Rushdie to come to India is a shameful thing for India. And the Congress is responsible for backing down. At least on this one subject, it certainly doesn’t get my vote…..

It was a threat to the Constitution…..not to federalism as the BJP is claiming

What threat to federalism is the BJP talking about? This thing about federalism seems to have become a favorite excuse with the party to block important pieces of legislation – especially the ones connected with corruption. They used the same plea in knocking off the proposal to have Lok Ayuktas enacted alongwith the Lokpal. Now they are saying that the Governor appointing the Lok Ayukta in Gujarat without a recco from the Council of Ministers amounts to an attack on federalism. A look at the facts of the case – very well captured in the HC order of yesterday should prove that the Governor has not acted on her own will (or on orders from the Center). She’s been forced to take the step she did.

What are the facts of the case? Take a look and decide for yourself:

1)      From Nov 2003 when the previous Lok Ayukta retired, till August 2006, the CM did not even initiate the process of selecting the new Lok Ayukta for the state. Now, the CM doesn’t have any role to play in the choice of the Lok Ayukta – but the process of getting a new one in place has to be started by the government. The government conveniently “forgot” to work on this. In all previous cases, the new Lok Ayukta was in place soon after the old one retired (within a few weeks). Why not this time?

2)      Eventually when Modi did start the process in August 2006, he totally exceeded his brief. He wrote to the Chief Justice recommending the name of Justice Vyas. Now the job of recommending is the Chief Justice’s. Modi had no role to play in this. Clause 3 of the Gujarat Lok Ayukta Act clearly says that the Governor (no doubt on the recommendations of the Council of Ministers) would appoint the Lok Ayukta in consultation with the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition. It’s not like the CM was left out of this by mistake – in the discussion that took place in the state Assembly before the Act was passed, the BJP (then in opposition) had insisted on the exclusion of the CM. Of course, the Governor has to act on the recommendation of the Government; however the Government is duty bound to recommend the name that is ok with the CJ and the Leader of the Opposition.

3)      Fortunately for Modi, the Chief Justice gave his assent to Justice Vyas. However, Modi had totally forgotten to consult the Leader of the Opposition. The Governor was duty bound to bring this up. In doing this, the Governor also asked for information about what consultation processes were followed by other states. That information took nearly six months to get. Subsequently Justice Vyas got appointed as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Maharashtra and hence was not available. A very convenient misstep by the government – not consulting the Leader of the Opposition – led to the wastage of nearly two and a half years.

4)      Its 2009 now. Nearly six years have elapsed by September 2009 and the Governor now asks for fresh proposals from the CM after consultation with the CJ and the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing moves in the government. Three months later, the Governor is forced to initiate the process with the Chief Justice asking for names. Finally by end-Feb, the CJ provides a panel of 4 names. Justice Vora – Modi’s current favorite – is one of them.

5)      For the next two months, Modi attempts to consult the Leader of the Opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition insists correctly that the CM has no role to play. Eventually, Modi chooses the name himself (How? Under what authority?), gets the name ratified by his Council of Ministers and makes the recommendation to the Governor. It is this arrogance of the CM that has led to the HC issuance such tough strictures against him….

6)      From then on, the Chief Justice (and not the Governor…..there is no political interference unless one assumes that the CJ is a political person) gives three names one after the other as his choice for the Lok Ayukta. First, it is Justice Dholakia, then Justice Dave and finally Justice Mehta. But all along, Modi has kept insisting on just Justice Vora. When he has no role in the choice of the Lok Ayukta, why did he keep pushing one single name? In fact, Justice Vora has also become unavailable because he had taken up another assignment – but Modi still wanted him to be considered.

7)      Modi objected to Justice Mehta’s name on frivolous grounds – again when he had no role in the choice. The CJ responded back and assured Modi there was no such worry in his mind. But even after so much time had elapsed, Modi still kept pushing for Justive Vora. Why?

8)      After August 2011, when the Chief Justice rejected Modi’s worries about Justice Mehta, there was tremendous pressure on Modi. The Leader of the Opposition had accepted Justice Mehta’s name. The CJ and the Governor were both pressurizing Modi to complete the process by recommending Justice Mehta’s name to the Governor. Even at this stage, the ball was with Modi. He could have made the recommendation and averted a constitutional crisis of sorts. It’s only when Modi kept failing to do this that the Governor was forced to make the appointment on her own. Even in doing this, she had all legal opinion backing her decision.

9)      No surprise then that in his order yesterday, Justice Sahai has made very intensely critical observations about Modi. It was the government that created a “constitutional mini crisis” he said. “For preserving democracy and to prevent tyranny, it became absolutely essential for the governor to exercise discretionary power under Article 163 of the Constitution and to appoint Mehta…..” and “The action of the CM and the Council of Ministers were perilous to democracy and the rule of law” – surely this cannot be proud moment for Modi.

In the meanwhile, there are many allegations of corruption against Modi’s government that have gone unattented because the Lok Ayukta has now not been in place for more than eight years. The Times of India lists many of the pending cases – they will now hopefully be investigated. How convenient for Modi not to have had a Lok Ayukta for so long.

Not for a moment am I supporting the part of the Lok Ayukta Act of Gujarat that gives the CM no role at all in the appointment of the Lok Ayukta. I have argued for long that the CM must be part of the team that chooses. The BJP government has been in power for so long – they could have amended the law if they felt strongly about it. But using delaying tactics in this manner is certainly not on.

The real truth is that Modi has played a well thought out role in delaying the appointment of the Lok Ayukta. Sooner or later, the law was bound to catch up with him. This order should serve as a reminder to all CMs and political parties that they must mend their old fashioned ways – and work towards having a strong anti-corruption mechanism in place. Those states that don’t have Lok Ayuktas – including Congress governments – must enact new laws in place at the earliest…..

If General Singh was born in 1951, would he have become General at all?

General VK Singh, the high decorated Chief of Army Staff has decided to take his struggle for deciding his real date of birth to the Supreme Court. In doing so, he has challenged the Ministry of Defence which decides matters of senior level postings, retirements, etc. The facts of the matter are a little unclear – and the Supreme Court will no doubt look into them. But there is one thing the General may want to keep in mind. That if his word is taken, then maybe he would have never made it to General at all. Mor on this later.

The basic controversy has arisen because the first UPSC form that General Singh signed (but not filled) when he applied to the Army mentions 1951 as the year of birth. Apparently the practice in those days was for the clerk to fill the form and the candidate to merely sign it. One would normally assume that the candidate would at least look once at the form before signing. Any error would be caught immediately and the error rectified there and then. If the practice was that candidates didn’t usually look at the form before signing, then by now, we should have had many hundreds or even thousands of cases of errors – and that experience should have provided us the precedent to resolve such problems.

The primary and most relevant documents that matter in proving the date of birth are the birth certificate issued by the hospital at the time of birth and the school matriculation certificate issued upon completion of SSC. Both mention 1951 as the year of birth, proving the General’s claim. These documents have been filed in the Adjutant General’s office which maintains all official records.

Unfortunately, the Military Secretary’s office (Ministry of Defence) continues to have the UPSC joining form and 1950 as its official record. There is thus a conflict between the records maintained by the Army and the concerned government ministry. Till the Supreme Court decides the matter, we will not know what the truth is. But as a result of the anomaly, an unnecessary controversy has broken out. And it’s become political. The opposition has accused the government of mishandling the situation and compromising “national security” (how I cannot understand).

When the Supreme Court hears the appeals, it will no doubt settle the age controversy one way or the other. And in the best traditions of respecting judicial verdicts, both the General and the Indian Government will abide by its verdict.

For now, let us assume that the General is right about his age. In that case, it is very likely that the General would never have become General at all. He would have retired as a Lieutenant General and the controversy would not even have arisen. Why do I say this?

Here’s why. As is well known, the Indian Army – just like all other bureaucratic arms of the government – relies strongly on age in deciding postings and promotions. In fact, bureaucrats are usually referred to as “batch of 1970” and so on depending on when they got inducted into the IAS. Likewise, IPS officers also follow a strict seniority principle in senior level appointments. There’s a corollary to this age principle. Unless there is a strong reason, a senior (by age) officer is not superceded by a younger officer. Hence each year matters and usually the batch become the benchmark for deciding who goes ahead and who stays behind in crunch situations. There may be other factors that come into play in deciding which officer within the same batch goes ahead, but batch seniority is the primary criterion in deciding promotions. This batch seniority principle is followed throughout the entire bureaucracy; each officer aware of the impact of this on his/her terminal designation at the time of retirement.

If the Military Secretary’s Office had updated the General’s records to reflect the correct date of birth, then it is entirely possible that the General may never have been made General at all. In fact, the fact that he was considered a year older must have played a role in him getting the job compared to his peers. Had it been known that he was a year younger in reality, it is likely that someone a year older would have got the job. In that case, General Singh would have retired as Lieutenant General. In fact, all through his career, he would have reached each position a year later than he actually did. It would be very unfair if the General got the advantage of older age all through his life, but when it came to retirement, he got the advantage of being a year younger.

The real truth is that this looks like a case of a genuine error in the records maintained by the Army and the Military Secretary’s office. This issue should have been sorted out earlier, but if wasn’t done, then it surely cannot be taken up now. The General himself has said that he doesn’t want a year’s extension. All he wants is for his word to be trusted. I think there is no reason for us to disbelieve him…..and that’s where the matter should end….

Please don’t censor the internet…..

Till the time it was just Kapil Sibal (in effect, the government) threatening to censor the internet, it was one thing. It was easy to criticize him and call him old fashioned. Now the courts have started to say the same thing. Why are the Executive and the Judiciary coming together on this issue? Are they reflecting the mood of the common people of this country and our society? And even if they are, is that justification enough for them to censor the internet and take what many are calling a very retrograde move? This post is written out of anguish and anger…..it looks to me to be a losing battle unless we can bring up a miracle.

I can already imagine the war cry that many orthodox people of our country will be raising on this issue. Of course, the internet should be censored. There is porn available freely on the internet. Our youth is getting spoilt by such unhindered exposure to such debauched content. Some will even say that this is the gameplan of the Western powers to influence our culture and eventually take over our youth.

It will hardly be difficult to prove that the charges against Google and other websites are true. Yes, it is true that for someone seeking porn, or fanatical stuff, or anything else that society considers “depraved”, it is freely available on the internet. The charge is 100% true. There is no point even attempting to put up a fight against such an accusation. Surely that is reason enough for the courts to order a clampdown on the net? Since there is a fair degree of censorship on other forms of media – the TV for instance cannot show adult stuff till 11 pm or so and even after that, there are serious restrictions – should there not be censorship (euphemistically called “programming guidelines”) on the internet also? No one can ever win against such arguments. The battle is lost even before it’s begun.

Kapil Sibal must be wringing his hands in joy with the court getting involved in a matter that he first raised. Just a few weeks back, he had himself bared his fangs at social networking sites – supposedly to get even with civil society which had used the internet to put massive pressure on the government during the Anna struggle. He – unfortunately for him and fortunately for us all – played his cards wrong and it appeared as if he was trying to protect the government’s back side, rather than thinking about society’s good. But now with the courts involved, it’s a different matter – its suddenly about morality. It’s about the attack on Indian culture….on the Indian identity itself…..and the damage the identity can suffer thanks to all the uncensored stuff one finds on the internet. When the courts say something, it usually carries a lot more weightage.

First it was the Congress that wanted to censor the internet. But honestly, I don’t expect the BJP to be any different - I can imagine the party supporting the court’s views. I can imagine the Muslim clergy and the Church also supporting the court’s views. I can hear them all screaming: Down with the internet. Let us remain cacooned in our own orthodox past. Leave us alone. We don’t want to become liberal. We don’t want to merge with the rest of the world. Down with the internet.

In what form will this censorship work? Like in Pakistan, will suggestive words like “sex” be banned from being used on the internet? Or will it be worse like in China, where Google had to leave the country and go. So no Google, no twitter, no Youtube, no nothing. In short, India will become another China or another Pakistan or another down-in-the-dumps orthodox and totalitarian regime in the world.

The discussion on censoring the internet is in effect a discussion on what our society stands for. I have said this many times before – that while India is progressing quite rapidly on the economic front, it is not doing so socially. Our society is still stuck in old social mores. The practice of casteism is still fully intact – with maybe….just maybe – a small dent having been made in the biggest metros. We are still very parochial about our religious beliefs and if we were given a chance, we would like to remove the word “secular” from our country’s Constitution. The collective weight of our traditional thinking pulls the country’s liberalism down a few notches every year. We deny MF Hussain the right to paint the way he wants to; Salman Rushdie the right to visit the country; and merrily play our politics on caste and religion lines. There is simply too much to gain and too little to lose for politicians of any party to go along with such retrograde views. Where does that leave the liberal folks of the country?

What about the Constitutional provision of Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, every clause in the Constitution comes with enough conditionality attached; so any clause can be interpreted in any number of different ways. It can be argued that freedom of speech is great; so long as it doesn’t affect anyone else. But porn and inflammatory religious material on the internet does affect the sentiments of our people and hence there is nothing wrong in curtailing such freedom of speech, some would argue.

What can we do about all this? All that we can do is raise our voice on the internet itself. Create enough social groups; post enough tweets; write enough blogs; so that the loud sound of our protests reaches the courts. It may well be a losing battle, but it must still be fought. This is too important a battle to be lost without a fight. The battle must also be fought legally. If the Delhi HC rules in favor of censorship, we must appeal in the Supreme Court. Maybe a middle ground can be found – where objectionable content is removed when someone complains but no pre-publishing censorship is imposed? That’s how it works in other media. Whatever we do, we cannot take censorship on the net….

The real truth is that the internet is a platform where people express themselves without any restraint. They sometimes vent their anger; sometimes share their joys. In the ultimate analysis, the internet is a social lubricant – bringing together thousands of people who would otherwise find it impossible to meet and exchange ideas. Nothing should be done to stop that. People who use the internet know how to discard lewd stuff. Such stuff is not taken seriously. India must never be seen in the same league as Pakistan and China…..no matter what.

In defence of Tendulkar, Dravid and VVS….

Our response to the defeat in Australia is pathetic to say the least. Typically over the top. Agreed 2011 has hardly been the year of glory for India – except of course the ODI world cup win in April. We got beaten black and blue in England (a complete whitewash) and now the same appears to be happening in Australia. There is nothing wrong in being disappointed; even angry. Cricket is a game of passion in India. A drubbing of this order is bound to take the mood in the country down a few notches. And yet our vociferous demand – mostly led by a news-starved and immature media – is typically driven by a need to sensationalize than to analyze carefully.

The biggest demand made in India is that all the “oldies” should be thrown out. VVS Laxman, Rahul Dravid, MS Dhoni are no good. They’ve outlived their time. And how long can we wait for Tendulkar’s 100^th hundred – as if once that event happens we can also conveniently dump him. And while we are at the cleaning up stage, let’s also dump the “relatively” old guys Gambhir and Sehwag. I am reminded of that old ad “saare ghar ke badal daalo” (change each piece in the house)! So who should we get in place of these oldies? Doesn’t matter really as long as we throw out the entire present team. That’s how angry we are right now. We are able to see nothing except this very bullet-point objective. We are driven by our heart; not by our mind.

But then that’s usually true of us Indians. We are usually driven by our hearts; almost never by our minds. We appreciate the cold thinking that the Australians do to build their team; yet we fault our selectors when they do the same (I will prove this later). Why do we do this? Because we cannot handle failures. We are poor losers. And our media prefers to be a reflector of the mood of the people – if only it did some analysis instead, the truth would emerge and the conclusions drawn would be very different.

Because here’s what the analysis would have revealed. When the team for the Australia tour was being chosen, the selectors would have looked at the performance of the eligible players in the full year of 2011. Guess who the players with the best average were? Rahul Dravid had an average of 57.25. The war horse made 1145 runs including 5 centuries and 4 half centuries. Next was Sachin Tendulkar with an average of 47.3 including one century and 5 half centuries. Yes, Tendu has had a dry spell with respect to centuries, but there is no drop in his average (his life time average is some 54). The third in the pecking order was our now-much-reviled VVS Laxman with an average of 40.7 including one century and 6 half centuries. All these best performers were the “oldies” – who we want sacked at the earliest. In fact, there were only seven other cricketers who made more runs than Tendulkar in 2011 and two of these seven are our lads (VVS and Dravid). Dravid was the best of the best – top scoring with 1145 runs – and also making the maximum number of centuries (5) and half centuries (4). Let’s look at the performance of some of the younger lads. Kohli (22.4), Raina (25.9), Murali Vijay (12 but from only 3 tests) and Yuvi (27.2 but from just 3 tests) are all at the lower end of the performance ratings. So who do we sack – the youngsters or the oldies??? Our selectors were right – they chose the best players available…..let’s not blame them just because we aren’t doing well.

What about the Aussies who we are all raving about right now? Not even one top order batsman of theirs matches up to Dravid. Warner had an average of 48.75, but from only 3 tests – strictly not comparable. The next highest was Hussey with 42.5 and Clarke with 38.6. What about the oldies that Australia stuck with? The oldest of them all – Ponting – had an average of only 31.9 and not a single century in all of 2011. But Australia didn’t react the way we are reacting. They didn’t go and throw out all their proven and experienced batsmen. Their media didn’t demand their scalps inspite of having had a bad year. They preferred to be driven by their minds…..

There is no doubt in my mind that we must demand accountability from our cricketers. They must perform. They cannot expect to be included in the team simply because of their past performances. Just like film stars, they are valued only as long as they perform. But any decision we take on them should be based on cold logic and not on hot emotions. Agreed India has many young and talented nuggets waiting to get the break – and they must be given a chance – but that decision must be made strategically. At all point, a certain balance must be maintained between youth and experience. That’s why I am with Dhoni when he has advised caution against removing senior players randomly.

What we need to do now is analyze the reason we do so badly when we go to countries like Australia and England. We’ll perhaps do poorly in South Africa and NZ also. The reason is not difficult to find. Our batsmen cannot handle the short pitched and fast rising deliveries. We get no training in those when playing in our own country. Our young batsmen – who we are counting on now – don’t get any training either. When exposed to the pitches in these countries, they are literally caught off-guard. It’s different in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies where the pitches are more like we have in our country. So we do well in those countries. If we are serious about winning internationally, we must develop pitches that help us rehearse adequately right here in our own country.

A similar reason had led to the debacle of Indian hockey when we failed to install astro turfs in our country. The astro turfs were much faster compared to the natural grounds on which we used to play. No wonder then that the Australians and Europeans took hockey away from us. It wasn’t about the capability of our players then; it isn’t about it now.

There is a reason why our first reaction is always to “throw them out”. We are an immature country driven by our emotions. When someone does well, we revere the person; even building temples in their names. We pay them like no one else does; award them with national honors like Padmi Shris and Padma Bhushans; give them huge advertising contracts. But somewhere in our minds, we grudge them the money they make. We feel jeolous of them. We don’t mind them their fame, but in a country where hundreds of millions of people still can’t eat two good meals a day, we feel that so much money is bad. We believe that money “spoils” the cricketers. We believe that they stop working hard once they have made their bucks. That’s why they went go-karting right? We forget that psychologists often advise people before a big event to relax – do something that is different from the main thing. In many ways, the moment these guys start earning lots of money, we start plotting their downfall. We want them to fail, so we can say “he deserved it”. We are unforgiving even towards those who have performed consistently for so long – the likes of Dravid and Tendulkar. In the past, we were similarly unfair to Ganguly and in the future, we will be to Dhoni.

So what do we do now? Well…..we analyze our problems and fix those. The problem is not our batsmen. The problem like I have mentioned earlier is the quality of pitches in our own country. The problem is the attitude of our fans and our media. The problem of our current underperformance cannot be addressed by pandering to media demands of sacking one and all. The solution lies in going into a huddle and addressing the problem from the roots.

The real truth is that we must learn to be a little more mature in our conduct. No country can perform in this manner. This yoyo like behavior will have devastating consequences. For all we know, Dravid and Tendulkar may still have it in them to give us a few more years of great performance. Let’s not act against them just because we are angry. Let’s demand more – but let’s be fair please. And my strong word of advice to media – please refrain from sensationalizing things. You sensationalized politics, Anna and you are now sensationalizing our poor performance in Australia….it’s time you became a little mature too.

PISA results shame India….but is anyone surprised really????

The PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) results out recently and covered in today’s papers have put India at the 2^nd from bottom position out of 73 countries that participated. PISA tests three subjects – Mathematics, Reading and Science – and India has ended either last or in the bottom three in all three subjects. To me, this is not surprising at all. Anyone who has a child in school in India knows what I mean.

But before we go there, a little more on PISA itself. PISA is an OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) test – and 34 of the 73 countries that participated in this latest round in 2009 and 2010 are OECD countries. OECD can be taken to be a short cut for “developed democracies that believe in market economy”. Amongst the non-OECD countries that participated, most are European countries with small populations. Then there are non-European countries including all non-Europeans members of BRIC (Brazil, India and China). In short, the sample of comparison is a little skewed towards either developed countries or small countries with a history of good education. However, that should hardly be the way we should look at the results that we have got. Rather, we should look at the results as an eye-opener.

The fact is that the quality of education in India is pathetic. Even a cursory look at the government’s role in education would show that. In government schools, there is a serious shortage of teachers – forget good quality teachers. There is also the real problem of basic infrastructure like classrooms, black boards and the like. The quality of text books is pathetic too. Student enrollment is a huge problem and incentives (midday meals for instance) have to be given just to enroll students. Thereafter making them continue poses another problem. As in all government jobs, teacher salaries are pathetic and consequently, a teacher’s job is seen as a “job of the last resort” for most people. Since pay is poor, teachers respond with low personal commitment – bunking class more often than the students; and hardly ever updating their knowledge. The curriculum in schools is so pathetic no decent person would put his children through such education. The books are hardly ever updated. The English used in the text books (even in the Maharashtra Board books taught to students in Mumbai) is pathetic – full of grammatical errors; it’s a miracle to find one full paragraph with no errors.

Worse than the pathetic state of affairs of our education is the way our students are tested. Exams test theoretical knowledge – usually “mugged up”. Learning in any case is always by rote. Even testing is done in a way that encourages mugging. In the 10^th and 12^th standard Board exams in Maharashtra (and so also in most other states), students are advised to go through the exam papers of the previous years – since the questions in that year’s Board exam would usually come from those old papers only. Even in mathematics, or accountancy, or any other subject which requires conceptual skills – questions as have appeared in the past are presented in papers of subsequent years. Even mathematics is tested in this manner.

Never ever is there any focus on practical learning in our education. Science is all about learning theories (again by rote) with there being no facility to visit science centers to see the theories work in practice. In fact, most Indian cities do not even have well equipped science centers which can teach practical modern science to students.

The PISA testing system is designed almost to expose India’s weaknesses in education. The PISA mathematics literacy test asks students to apply their mathematical knowledge to solve problems set in various real-world contexts. How can poor Indian students studying under an education system that encourages study by rote be expected to face such questions? Likewise in the reading test, PISA does not measure the extent to which 15-year-old students are fluent readers or how competent they are at word recognition tasks or spelling. Instead, they should be able to "construct, extend and reflect on the meaning of what they have read across a wide range of continuous and non-continuous texts” (Wikipedia note on PISA). Indian students are bound to fail in such tests. Give them “mugging up” tests and see how they fare.

There is another part to the education system in India. There are private schools that have a far higher quality of education, but those are relatively small in number, catering mostly to the affluent urban sections of the society. Even these come under the archaic curriculum of our Boards. But at least the private schools provide better teachers, expect compulsory attendance, and help with at least some explanation of concepts. If the PISA tests were to be taken by students from private urban schools, I have no doubt India would fare much better.

In many ways, the education system in our country reflects the kind of society we are. A small section of our population – mostly made up of the upper castes that are well educated – is able to afford the best opportunites for itself. These people have seen the fruits of development. They rely mostly on private schools for educating their kids. On the other hand, there is the big mass of our country – made up mostly of the under privileged including the lower castes – that has to make do with whatever the government dishes out. And just like in every other sphere, the government’s efficiency in education is pathetic. Not surprising then that even the two states supposed to be ahead in education in India – Tamil Nadu and Himachal – have been rated so poorly in the PISA test.

India has participated for the first time in PISA. Rather than complain about its methodology, we should treat the results as an eye opener. As the TOI quotes the OECD secretary-general Angel Gurría “Better educational outcomes are a strong predictor for future economic growth,” If India is serious about growing economically, it cannot expect to do so only on the back of its fortunate sections – it has to be able to provide adequate and equal opportunities to all its citizens. I have written about this several times – the focus in India is on slogans. “Right to Education” is a buzzword in India – but there is no explanation of what constitutes education. If merely being able to write one’s name makes one literate, then that’s not going to be enough in the emerging world. If the government were serious about education, it should add the word “good” in the Right to Education. And it should look at improving its delivery systems – it is squarely the job of the government to provide good education.

The real truth is that anything which the government undertakes in India ends up being really poor quality. We can have very high quality private buildings, but the road outside that the government makes can be expected to be full of potholes. We can have a vibrant private sector industrial sector, but the power and water that the government provides will be both inadequate and poor quality. It’s the same tragedy with our education system – and its time the government woke up to its responsibilities.