June 1, 1998

Fight terrorism in Kashmir -- but try not to make a song and dance about it.

Over the past week, the term "war of words" has been repeatedly deployed in describing the Indo-Pakistani exchanges over Kashmir. To an extent, there can be no quarrel with verbal belligerence. It is certainly preferable to real conflict. However, what is unquestionably irritating is that the fiery statements seem to have much to do with electoral politics -- and bear only an incidental relation to Kashmir's festering wound. It is difficult to disagree with Home Minister L.K. Advani's resolve to "quell" militancy and punish Pakistan for its proxy war in India's most troubled state. Even so, what Advani has said is scarcely a revelation. If his ministry has formulated a new plan to finally eradicate the pestilence of Kashmiri terrorism, surely it can be implemented without sounding the war cry.

Advani's reference to the changed strategic environment in south Asia in the light of the Pokhran tests -- and his suggestion that Pakistan take note of this in deciding the future of its Kashmir policy -- is equally exceptionable. At one level, it makes India appear overly bellicose. More substantially, it confuses issues: Kashmir is a problem which has to be solved, nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. If Advani can be accused of needlessly thinking aloud, Madan Lal Khurana must be charged with letting his tongue get the better of him. In Jammu, ostensibly on Tourism Ministry duty, Khurana declared India ready for a fourth war with Pakistan and even asked it to "tell us the place and time". Less sympathetic quarters have a term for such indiscretion: warmongering. The reactions from Islamabad and Washington have been predictable. Two lessons emerge from these events. One, the post-Pokhran euphoria is making even senior ministers forget that diplomacy is not quite the stuff which is practised in a wrestling pit. Two, to reshape Ted Roosevelt's immortal dictum, carry a big stick in Kashmir -- but for heaven's sake, speak softly.

Try Teaching For a Change

Pay college teachers more only if they agree to conform to academic standards

No society likes its college and university teachers to get embroiled in conflicts with the state. Yet the haggling currently going on between the Government and teachers' organisations over pay scales has led to the boycott of examinations by the Delhi University Teachers' Association (DUTA), one of the leading teachers' units. The Delhi High Court -- acting on a petition by a students' organisation -- has ordered the parties to work out a negotiated settlement. Despite a meeting between Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and the teachers' representatives, the dispute is far from being resolved. The teachers are demanding a pay structure recommended by the University Grants Commission (UGC) but Joshi insists on paying a somewhat smaller package and wants to create two new grades. If the Joshi package proves unacceptable to teachers, they may go on strike after the summer vacations, like DUTA had done when it went on a 109-day strike in 1982-83.

In the present face-off, Joshi is focusing on the financial package but is vague on the issue of accountability. He should do the opposite. The teachers are not overpaid; they simply don't offer quality teaching. A half-century after Independence, the number of college and university students has spiralled to 64 lakh, but the 2.3 lakh teachers, under whose charge they are, have little obligation to quality. Their selection is subject to political influence and their tenures are as secure as those in government jobs. The minister should offer the teachers the salaries they seek but ask them to strictly conform to the often-ignored UGC norm of working 40 hours a week for 30 working weeks in a year. He should also make the teachers responsible for the academic performance of students. The dignity of the teaching profession demands it should give back to academia at least what it gets.

© Living Media India Ltd