- Not by the book
In his editorial for The Indian Express today, Hari Vasudevan pointed out how the latest alterations in textbooks undermined the autonomy of NCERT. In the past year, the NCERT, whose school textbooks are used by the CBSE and which provides the model for state boards, has made alterations in textbooks developed during 2005-09.
The changes have been made in-house by the NCERT, bearing in mind the suggestions that were received. According to reports, these include direct instructions from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which has no right to give them, the NCERT being an autonomous body.
Among the “winners”, in the changes, are figures such as Shivaji and Rana Pratap, who have been provided larger space. A host of new visuals has appeared. The space of the textbooks, it appears, is becoming a field for stray information that various influential individuals and groups hold dear, and that the NCERT has been required to include.
The fact that much of the textbook material has been left alone in the latest NCERT changes indicates that the pedagogic purpose and that a line is being breached in India’s educational establishment by those who have little idea of what they are dealing with.
- A Petty Quarrel
The unending Delhi saga of “full statehood” versus “partial statehood” has less to do with constitutional correctness and more to do with the political compulsions, instincts and pettiness, says Bhopinder Singh in his column for The Indian Express. He further stated that the dissonance over Delhi’s status dates back to the Sheila Dikshit era. Relations between the then chief minister and lieutenant general were tense even though the Congress held office at both the state and the Centre.
The principle of special sensitivities for national capitals has been consistently invoked to make a case for Delhi’s claim to “full statehood” to be treated differently from that for Goa, or even a more empowered “partial statehood” in Puducherry. The result is a fractured arrangement of power-sharing, with law and order, land and services residing with the central government.
The impasse in Delhi suggests a total breakdown in the relations between the two sections. It also implies that the entire administrative staff is against the state government. This is not possible given the diversity and scale of the administrative machinery. The government must introspect and adopt a more mature approach to the bureaucracy. The means and expressions of the current protest reflect reciprocal pettiness and diminution of constitutional sobriety.
- The changing nature of violence
The police must develop ‘smart tactics’ to deal with popular unrest and threats of the new era, says M.K Narayanan in his column for The Hindu. He states that events in Thoothukudi on May 22 and 23 have helped turn the spotlight on the changing nature of violence, and the inadequacy of existing rules and procedures to deal with new-era protests. This should be instructive, for new-era protests are redefining the internal security landscape. Thoothukudi is yet another incident in the expanding saga of industry versus the environment.
The widest gap separating the official version from that of the public is about the presence/absence of ‘agent provocateurs’ among the protesters. It is no secret that many of today’s large-scale protests across the country are prompted by militant elements from outside, who are pre-programmed to create chaos. This is the age of ‘high voltage’ revolt, basically an expression of repressed anger.
Much of this arises from an “embedded wisdom” that the system is being “manipulated” in favour of the rich, the powerful, and the big multinationals.
Thus, new ‘smart tactics’ have to be developed. Simply blaming the police is no answer to the growing volumes of protests everywhere.
- Shujaat Bukhari’s Assassination is aimed at Disrupting Any Move towards Peace
In his column for The Wire, Manoj Joshi said that Jammu and Kashmir has been one of the best-covered insurgencies in the world because journalists have enjoyed a relative immunity from the violence. Foreign reporters, particularly those belonging to the print media, have never been blocked from the Valley, and local and mainland journalists have been able to move around with relative freedom and talk to who they could.
So the big question is: Why Shujaat, and why now? He was no radical, implacably opposed to the Indian state, nor was he someone whom the separatists and militant organisations could even remotely accuse of being a government stooge.
Some may ask whether there were people in the deep state who wanted to send a message or merely disrupt the current situation. However the right-wing commentaries may seek to vilify him, Bukhari was a believer in the rule of law. He was a well-known journalist whose positions on various issues were there for all to see. With regard to the recent ceasefire, Bukhari wrote about how it offered “a glimmer of hope to the common people”.