By Dr Rajvir Sharma
It is almost one month since the UPA government was installed in office. But the one month appears to be a century of misrule because the decisions taken so far by this government have become too awesome to be borne. The government, which was expected to be friendly to the aam admi in whose name it came to power, has lost the track. No sensible person could ever think that the post-election follow-up by them shall be so petty, blind and narrow.
Take the example of the decisions taken so far by the HRD minister, Arjun Singh. He stooped to the maximum low by questioning every socially, legally and constitutionally valid and justified decision taken by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, merely to appease the Leftists for whom internationalism has always got precedence over the nation. It is in their conscience to denounce anything and everything that is rooted in Indian culture, tradition and thought as retrograde, saffron, divisive and against scientific temper. Arjun Singh has even come down to harassing those who played catalysts to erase colonial designs from the history books and saving a tender mind from learning lessons in social hatred and false images of communities. He, while acting on the framed-up charge-sheets against the NCERT chief, forgot that those very prejudiced minds opted for every method available to oppose and undo the decisions of the NCERT and erstwhile HRD minister and term them as communal and saffronisation. When people were unconvinced of their logic, they went to the highest court of justice?the Supreme Court?which again refused to be led by their paroxysm and upheld the validity and relevance of all the decisions. The court upheld the constitutionality even of the introduction of the courses on karma kand, astrology, Sanskrit, etc., which was termed by the ?red guards? as an imposition of Hindutva by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, who was doing nothing but incorporating an element of Indian culture and reality at various levels.
Arjun Singh has played to the tune of the IIMs at a very high social cost. He has reversed another pro-poor decision of his predecessor while allowing the IIMs to continue with the earlier fee structure. Let there be no doubt that the provision for scholarship for the meritorious needy is not something new. Neither he nor his elite IIM community has ever explained to the common man of the country as to how, except under the facade of autonomy, the low fee structure was going to affect the quality of teaching and research in these institutions of excellence. Loan is not charity, Shri Arjun Singh, until this government announces a general amnesty in the name of social justice to pay back and risk the nation to bankruptcy.
When people were unconvinced of their logic, they went to the highest court of justice?the Supreme Court?which again refused to be led by their paroxysm and upheld the validity and relevance of all the decisions. The court upheld the constitutionality even of the introduction of the courses.
Second decision taken by Arjun Singh is meant to reverse an earlier one providing for one common entrance test for admission to management courses, instead of five to be conducted separately by AIMA, IIT, IIMs or XLRI, etc. The poor have been deliberately denied access to management education as a large majority of them would be unable to bear the exorbitant application fee and other costs of examinations at different times and places. Their educational exclusion is based upon the elitist theory of knowledge and intelligence, which Dr Joshi wanted to discount and discontinue.
Arjun Singh has also begun to treat NCERT as a rehabilitation centre or a patronage distribution club. Otherwise, there can be no rationale behind the constitution of a big-sized committee of communist activists and historian friends to review the NCERT books. Let it be known to everybody that these books have already been examined by the court and the people at that time and a seal of approval was put on them by both. In the last six years the same historian friends and Arjun Singh himself have been crying hoarse about saffronisation of school education. If their contention was not purely motivated politically, then there should be enough evidence with them to that effect with no need for wasting public money and energies on the committee to find out the wrongs. If otherwise, then Arjun Singh and his comrades owe an apology to the nation and to Dr Joshi and Prof. Rajput for carrying a misleading and fradulent campaign against them.
In fact the perverted secularists of the make of Arjun Singh would serve the nation well if he tenders resignation as HRD minister or promises to the people openly that he would restrain himself from pursuing narrow partisan ends and would concentrate on matters of substance, as well as try to read the approach and philosophy of Rajiv Gandhi about education policy and development, if he is so awefully opposed to accepting intellectual superiority and vision of Dr Joshi. If he doesn'tfollow either of these two courses, he should be shown the exit gate by the Prime Minister. It is necessary because the impact of perverted secularism has begun to be seen in other ministries as well. The Ministry of Culture seems to be following the HRD minister.
Dr Manmohan Singh, in the emerging environment of casual and irresponsible political pettiness and vote-bank politics at the cost of national interests, cannot escape his duty to put a full stop to such anti-people tendencies.
(The writer teaches political science at Delhi University.)