English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Save the university

Published

on

Jawaharlal Nehru University

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]UGC’s decision to drastically cut the number of seats in MPhil and PhD courses will deplete JNU’s research base and affect education and society in ways policy-makers cannot at present contemplate

By Meha Mathur

Even as the Kanhaiya Kumar issue was cooling off within the JNU campus, the premier central university of the country was hit by a regulation that it will find difficult to circumvent. The new, strict UGC guideline will result in a drastic reduction in the number of MPhil and PhD seats in various streams.

The guideline of July 2016 stipulates that no professor can be a guide to more than three MPhil and eight PhD students at any point of time. This means that admissions to the forthcoming batch will depend on how many students are already enrolled under various professors—research work taking as many as five or six years. Then, there are programmes in which there can be no admission this year.

Here’s an overview of seat reduction in various schools, for which JNU is famed:

  • School of Social Sciences: 232 (present strength 330)
  • School of International Studies: 141 (present strength 232)
  • School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies: 73 (present strength 227)
  • No admission in MPhil and PhD this year at the Centre for Media Studies, Centre for African Studies, Centre for East African Studies, Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, Centre for the Study of Discrimination and Exclusion

On the face of it, the UGC move to bring down the student-teacher ratio at research level seems very rational. After all, when international rankings of educational institutions are released, the student-teacher ratio and quality of teaching are important criteria, and cramped classrooms can’t aspire to figure on these lists. “No Indian institute among top 200 world universities, experts worried”, read a Hindustan Times headline in September 2016 when the Times Global rankings were released.

Excellence vs inclusivity

But then, there is more to it than meets the eye. Academics from JNU and Delhi University have voiced concerns at the long-term harm it will cause. The first issue that comes to mind is its impact on inclusivity. JNU is one of the few universities offering quality higher education and research opportunities at affordable cost. By limiting the number of seats, the government is shutting the door of opportunity on the poor.

Posters and graffiti in JNU

Posters and graffiti in JNU

Ajay Gudavarthy, associate professor of political science at JNU, says the move has been inspired by the aim of maintaining parity with global universities, but it can’t be feasible in a country of India’s size, where aspirations of people are now high. “The logic is fine, but you don’t have too many universities like JNU which can fulfil those aspirations of poor. This move will close opportunities for the disadvantaged youth of India.”

Ayesha Kidwai, professor at Centre of Linguistics in JNU, says this will push higher education out of the reach of poor. “So many youngsters come to JNU because they can avail of the opportunity by paying the same fee as the rich. Now, a good, affirmative action has been ended through this regulation. Instead of spreading such models of education, we are shrinking these options.”

Depleting research base

Then again, if you reduce the number of research scholars, who will teach at the level of higher education?

In a UGC report of 2008 titled “Higher Education in India: Issues Related to Expansion, Inclusiveness, Quality and Finance”, the then UGC chairman S Thorat had written about the then 11th Five Year Plan: “The 11th Plan recognised that the availability of adequate and qualified faculty is a pre-requisite for quality education. It also recognised that due to restrictions on the recruitment of the faculty in the state universities and colleges in 1980’s and 1990’s by various states, we faced serious problems related to the availability of faculty.” It seems that wisdom has again been lost on the policy makers.

Kidwai says that the national enrolment for PhDs is 0.5 percent. In all central universities it’s 3.2 percent, whereas in JNU it’s 62.5 percent. Now, this will come down to 15 to 20 percent. “Do you want MAs to teach in colleges?” she asks.

Abha Dev Habib, who teaches at Miranda House, Delhi University, says that for all the complaints that the research output is not good, we are reducing public money in education and the research grants have been constantly decreasing since 2013. The number of research proposals that have received grants has also come down and many institutions are feeling the pinch. Teachers in higher education are seen as a financial liability, because once they are recruited, they will have to be promoted, too. It’s clear, therefore, that all means are being adopted to dissuade research and recruitment in public institutions of higher learning.

The logical extension of this is that private universities will get more and more room to operate in research space, too. But as Gudavarthy points out, it will leave the poor out of the ambit of research. “About 50 percent of the students we have are poor. They will have to go back.” They might have to compromise on their dreams by joining second-rung universities, because private universities are outside their means.

What are the options?

Despite the Delhi High Court having already dismissed a petition from students for a stay on the UGC strictures on certain technical grounds, Siddiqui says the academics will not give in and that they will seek further legal recourse. But with the admission season already commencing, the future of at least the current batch of admission-seekers stands jeopardised.

The question that needs to be addressed in the long run is, what alternative does the government intend to provide to those who stand to lose? Are other universities on the anvil, offering research facilities on a par with JNU? Or does the government want to wean away youth from research and have them take up vocational and job-oriented courses only?

Move smacks of anti-intellectualism

Another dimension of the limit imposed on research students is the issue of politicisation. Abha Dev Habib puts it bluntly when she says that the government is disturbed by social movements. She says that JNU has a large number of research students who spend much more time on the campus than MA students, and there are more chances of their getting politicised. The government wants to minimise those chances. Kidwai agrees, saying this move smacks of “anti-intellectualism”.

The seat reduction has hit international studies and social sciences—disciplines associated with asking questions and with reasoning, in particular. Gudavarthy adds: “They don’t want a critical society. The focus is more on technology and vocational education. We will have a dearth of public intellectuals that way.”

Perhaps the move is also part of the shift away from research culture. After all, the Prime Minister has already set the agenda with “Harvard vs hard work”. There’s nothing wrong in having people respect vocational professions. But it takes all kinds of people to make this world. Pushing the pendulum to the other extreme will be counterproductive.

At this juncture, the questions need to be answered by policy-makers.

Photos by Anil Shakya and Meha Mathur[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Ajit Pawar dismisses speculation on Supriya Sule joining BJP

Ajit Pawar has dismissed speculation about Supriya Sule joining the BJP, calling such rumours exaggerated and stressing that his focus remains on elections and development.

Published

on

Ajit Pawar

Amid renewed political speculation around Nationalist Congress Party–Sharad Pawar (NCP-SP) leader Supriya Sule’s future, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar on Monday dismissed rumours of her joining the BJP, stating that he is “not an astrologer” and prefers to focus on governance and electoral outcomes rather than conjecture.

The remarks came after Sule publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for sending all-party delegations abroad following Operation Sindoor, triggering fresh political chatter in Maharashtra’s volatile landscape.

Ajit Pawar rejects political speculation

Responding to questions from the media, Ajit Pawar said speculative interpretations are often exaggerated and unnecessarily amplified.

“I am not an astrologer. Such speculative questions often become breaking news without reason. My focus is on development until January 15,” he said, seeking to put an end to the rumours.

On whether there is any possibility of the two factions of the Nationalist Congress Party coming together, Pawar said the immediate priority is electoral success.

“At present, our top priority is winning the elections. We are working with full effort to ensure a positive outcome,” he said.

On NCP reunification and family ties

Addressing broader questions on a possible reunification between the NCP and NCP-SP, Pawar used a familial analogy, suggesting that unity cannot be ruled out.

“We are one family. In every family, people come together during moments of happiness and sorrow. If family members decide to stand together, there is nothing wrong in that,” he said.

However, he did not indicate any concrete move or timeline for such a reunion.

Thackeray brothers’ reunion and voter behaviour

Commenting on the coming together of the Thackeray brothers, Pawar said the development could have electoral consequences.

“Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS traditionally had different voter bases. With them coming together, vote division could reduce, which may benefit them electorally,” he said.

Pawar clarified that he played no role in facilitating the reunion but welcomed the move, calling it a positive development within a political family.

He also cautioned against assuming uniform voter consolidation, noting that voting behaviour varies across elections.

“Voters think differently in national, state and local elections. The results of the Lok Sabha and subsequent Assembly elections clearly show that,” he added.

On free facilities, local alliances and Mumbai remark

Responding to criticism over promises of free facilities, Pawar said such decisions rest with the Chief Minister at the state level and the Prime Minister at the national level. He added that at the local body level, his experience of over two decades guides his approach.

On alliances involving parties like the NCP, Shiv Sena and AIMIM in local bodies such as the Parli Municipal Corporation, Pawar said such arrangements are common and often finalised locally without involving senior leadership.

He also strongly rejected remarks by a BJP leader claiming Mumbai is not part of Maharashtra.

“Mumbai is in India, and within India, it is in Maharashtra. It will always remain a part of Maharashtra. Such statements are made around elections to draw attention,” Pawar said.

On Bharat Ratna for Sharad Pawar

When asked whether NCP founder Sharad Pawar should be awarded the Bharat Ratna, Ajit Pawar said the decision lies with the Central government.

“Sharad Pawar has served public life for over 60 years and taken many important decisions. Anyone is free to express an opinion, but the final call rests with the Centre,” he said.

Continue Reading

India News

PSLV comeback mission hit by third-stage anomaly during launch from Sriharikota

ISRO’s PSLV-C62 mission faced a third-stage anomaly around 30 minutes after launch, raising concerns over the rocket’s comeback flight after its 2025 failure.

Published

on

PSLV LAUNCH

At 10.18 am on Tuesday, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)-C62 lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, carrying 16 satellites into space. The launch marked the first PSLV mission of the year and was being closely watched as a comeback attempt following a failure in 2025.

Roughly 30 minutes after liftoff, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) stated that the mission had “encountered an anomaly” during its third stage. The space agency has initiated a detailed analysis but has not yet officially declared the mission a failure.

Third stage issue raises concerns again

The PSLV is a four-stage launch vehicle, with the first two stages reportedly performing as expected during Tuesday’s mission. The problem surfaced during the third stage, where deviation was observed.

ISRO chairman Dr V Narayanan said that a detailed assessment is underway. Historically, issues during the third stage of a rocket have often resulted in mission failure, although ISRO has so far avoided using that term for this launch.

The setback is significant as this was intended to be a recovery mission. The PSLV’s only launch in 2025 had also failed due to a third-stage issue. An analysis committee was formed after that failure, but its findings were not made public.

Mission payload and satellite loss

The mission aimed to place a surveillance satellite into orbit. The earth observation satellite, named Anvesha, was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. Alongside it, the PSLV carried 15 additional satellites from multiple countries, including Brazil, Nepal and the UK.

With the anomaly occurring mid-mission, these satellites are now believed to be lost.

Track record remains strong despite setback

The PSLV has completed 64 missions so far, with four failures recorded prior to this launch. If the current mission is eventually declared unsuccessful, it would mark the fifth failure, keeping the overall success rate relatively high.

However, the timing of the anomaly is a concern, given the growing reliance on PSLV for commercial and strategic launches.

Impact on space industry and future launches

The development is particularly worrying for private players in India’s expanding space ecosystem. Several start-ups had payloads on this mission, including Hyderabad-based Dhruva Space, which had placed seven satellites onboard.

The outcome also casts uncertainty over the planned industry-led PSLV launch scheduled for the first half of 2026. That mission is being developed with participation from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Larsen and Toubro.

ISRO is expected to conduct a thorough investigation into the third-stage issue before finalising the status of the mission and outlining corrective measures.

Continue Reading

India News

Mani Shankar Aiyar’s remarks on Hindutva spark political backlash from BJP

Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar’s comments on Hindutva at a Kolkata debate have triggered sharp reactions from the BJP, escalating the Hinduism versus Hindutva debate.

Published

on

manishankar aiyer

Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has triggered a political controversy after describing Hindutva as “Hinduism in paranoia” during a public debate in Kolkata, prompting a strong rebuttal from leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Aiyar made the remarks at a discussion titled “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva”, organised by the Calcutta Debating Circle at the Calcutta Club on Sunday. Several political leaders, legal experts, historians and journalists participated in the debate.

Aiyar draws distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva

Speaking at the event, Aiyar argued that Hinduism and Hindutva are fundamentally different, describing Hinduism as a spiritual and civilisational faith, while calling Hindutva a political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century.

“Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to feel threatened by 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar said, adding that Hinduism had survived and flourished for thousands of years without the need for what he described as political protection.

He referred to incidents involving attacks by vigilante groups and criticised actions against individuals over religious practices, beef consumption and participation in Christmas celebrations. Aiyar also cited writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, contrasting them with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whom he described as proponents of non-violence and inclusivity.

According to Aiyar, “There is no way Gandhi’s or Vivekananda’s Hinduism can be protected or promoted by Savarkar’s Hindutva.”

BJP leaders push back strongly

Aiyar’s comments drew an immediate response from BJP leaders present at the debate and later from party spokespersons.

BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi questioned the framing of the debate itself, arguing that the term “Hindutva” refers to “Hindu tattva” or the essence of Hindu philosophy. He said that associating Hinduism with the suffix “ism” was misleading and dismissive of India’s indigenous traditions.

“When you cherish Hinduism, it is called Hindutva,” Trivedi said, rejecting the distinction drawn by Aiyar.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused Aiyar of repeatedly making remarks that, according to him, insult Sanatan Dharma. He claimed that the comments echoed the Congress party’s broader stance on Hindutva.

Poonawalla also referred to past statements by Congress leaders and said that Hindutva has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “way of life.” He accused the party of attempting to portray Hindutva as violent and divisive.

Political debate intensifies

The exchange has added to the ongoing political debate over the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, a subject that has remained contentious in Indian politics. While Aiyar defended his views as ideological and historical critique, BJP leaders framed the remarks as an attack on religious identity.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com