Constitutional complexities
The March issue of EW made interesting reading. I was particularly fascinated by the cover story about the proposed XavierUniversity. My compliments to the Jesuit Conference of India for their vision.
While I don’t hold a brief for the Union HRD ministry, I would like to mention that Union HRD minister Arjun Singh and D. Purandeshwari, minister of state, have been extremely supportive of quality initiatives in higher education. The thrust for setting up six new IIMs, eight IITs, 15 Central universities, five IISc(s) and an unprecedented allocation of over Rs.8,000 crore for higher education during the next financial year, have been consequent to their initiatives supported by our benevolent prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. Several institutions for minorities have also been approved over the past four years. Higher education has never received as much support since independence as during the UPA regime.
Without questioning for a moment the great work the Jesuits are doing in the sphere of education, it needs to be borne in mind that these institutions were established in various states with special support systems/dispensations, under legal provisions then prevalent and a diversity of administrative jurisdictions. Some were established as instruments of local state governments; others as societies/trusts etc.
If they are to now have one jurisdiction under Article 30(1) of the Constitution adopted in 1950 and the UGC Act (1956), just because these institutions are presently being administered by Jesuits, it does not necessarily follow that these colleges were ‘established’ by them. Article 30(1) requires a sync of both domains. Some of the pre-eminent colleges you mention were handed over to the religious congregation to be managed by them and the land/buildings are owned by the state or gifted. This will not fulfill the ‘establish’ criterion under Article 30(1).
A second issue that needs examination is inter-state jurisdiction over the various Jesuit colleges located in Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc. Currently most Central universities and their clusters of colleges are located in the state in which the university is situated. It needs to be examined whether any university in the world has inter-state/pan nation educational jurisdiction, in terms of affiliated institutions. If so, what legal parameters bind the states whose children the university aspires to educate?
It is also important for the proposed XavierUniversity to mention value addition by way of new and emerging knowledge domains, research and world class facilities they will put in place, as outcomes. Your observation — “establishing the university would sharply raise standards of higher education in India” — requires some quantification.
To be fair, the magnitude of the proposal requires wide consultations and re-working of the legal framework.
Francis Fanthome, MP, New Delhi
(Francis Fanthome, MP is the former secretary-general of the Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations, Delhi — Editor)
Great idea
I read your cover story on the proposal to establish the Xavier University of India (EW March) with great interest. It would be a great step forward for education, as the Jesuits are known for their immense contribution to school and tertiary education in India. The top undergraduate colleges in India including St. Xaviers, Mumbai; St. Joseph’s, Bangalore; Loyola, Chennai; and St. Xaviers, Kolkata, are all Jesuit run institutions.
Currently these colleges are affiliated with universities located in their respective states and hence are obliged to follow the affiliating university’s course content. In fact, while these colleges are highly-reputed for academic excellence, their affiliating universities are infamous for poor quality teaching, nepotism and corruption. Cutting loose from non-supportive state universities will help these undergraduate colleges connect with higher education institutions around the world and devise new syllabuses.
Suman Trivedi
Mumbai
Shameless celebration
Slumdog Millionaire is not an Indian movie. As the author rightly points out in the postscript titled ‘Naive euphoria’ (EW March), Indians are rejoicing for the wrong reasons. Celebrating A.R. Rahman’s double-Oscar win makes sense, and so does Resul Pookuty’s win. But why are we so happy for Danny Boyle who has paraded the mind-numbing poverty and deprivation of India’s thousands of urban slums on the world stage?
It’s particularly galling that the ruling UPA government claims credit for Slumdog’s winning spree at the Oscars. Allowing so many slums to exist in India’s crumbling cities should be a matter of shame rather than celebration.
Ashish Jain
Hyderabad
Jehad irony
Your editorial ‘Intelligent response to Jehadi terror’ (EW January) was well-argued. Recently President Zardari publicly expressed his fears about the Taliban taking over Pakistan.
Nothing could be more ironic. Pakistan nurtured and supported terrorism against India, and now the jehadi monster has turned on its master. If Islamabad is serious about fighting terrorism, it should come clean and work sincerely with India to root it out from the subcontinent. The first step would be to accept Kashmir, including PoK, as an integral part of India, and then allow the Indian Army to destroy all terrorist camps operating in the region.
Mahesh Kumar
Delhi