Obama’s Foreign Policy Challenges

Barak H. Obama is youthful, dynamic, intelligent and also inexperienced. There is no denying the fact that by occupying the White House he has performed a near-miracle. He overcame race and colour barriers to become America’s first black president. He has been hailed as the leader par excellence who can change America, and can especially save its ailing economy.
Obama’s electoral campaign was like a fairytale. He always looked oozing with confidence and self-belief. He successfully convinced America that he was their messiah. Initially the world took interest in him because of his colour and oratory. As he came near to winning the presidency, he grew in stature and the world leaders began to study his ideas and policies closely. Obama himself gradually became conscious of the high status and powers that an American president carries and began to believe that he could change not only America but also the world. He took independent positions on burning issues of the world including Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Initially he expressed sympathy for the Palestinians and even criticized Israel for some of its excesses. He stood for an independent Palestine which angered the Jewish lobby in America. Under Jewish pressure the media launched attack after attack on his Palestine policy and forced him to openly support Israel. He immediately realized that the powerful Jewish lobby would hamper his campaign for American presidency and began to woo Israel. He even wrote articles in Israeli newspapers assuring Tel Aviv that his administration, too, would blindly support Israel. And today the world knows that Obama administration is not a neutral umpire in Israeli-Palestinian dispute but a strong ally of Tel Aviv.
Guantanamo Bay and Iraq were other issues on which Obama differed from the Bush administration. Steps are being taken to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay and Obama seems still committed to withdrawing American forces from Iraq. Insurgency continues in Iraq but not on the high scale it was a few years ago. The reason is not the so called “success” of Bush administration’s “surge policy” but rather it is Maliki’s accommodation of the elements of Saddam regime who were not avowed Ba’athist. Today Iraq does not need bulk of American forces any way which makes their withdrawal even more sensible. But it must be borne in mind that even Obama administration would prefer to have sizeable presence of American forces in Iraq to keep the insurgents at Bay. Even Maliki needs at least American Airforce to survive in office. Obama’s real test would be to engage Iran diplomatically. The Western world has realized well that Iran was determined to make nuclear bomb. They also realize that economic and diplomatic sanctions would not work. It is also clear that in the prevalent situation in West Asia any attack on Iran would prove to be counter-productive. Thus the only option which remains open is to engage Iran diplomatically. It is clear that it will take sometime when Obama would decide his Iran strategy.
Obama’s biggest challenge right now seems to be Afghanistan, the last victim of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the US. The country has been battered by continuous wars and conflicts. Obama thinks that by pumping more American forces into Afghanistan he can win the war. But this is a naïve thinking and smacks of Obama’s inexperience. Bill Clinton, the former US president, has recently warned that Afghanistan might prove Obama’s Vietnam. Wars never solve problems, rather they multiply them. It is diplomacy that ultimately succeeds. No one is sure when this wisdom would dawn on Obama. For many years American and NATO forces have been bombing and killing people, many of whom are innocent including children, women and the aged. But these bombings have yielded no results; instead they have aroused Afghans’ anger all over the country. This explains why the Taliban movement controls more than 70 percent of the country. Obama would be well-advised to engage Taliban diplomatically than try to batter them with more ferocious bombings. More than weapons, strategic and diplomatic moves solve problems. This is a lesson that Obama must learn sooner than later, as it would help both America and the world.

[ February, 2009]

Critique of UGC’s New Service Conditions

(Here is a hurriedly prepared critique of the new UGC guidelines/ service conditions for University/ College teachers. It might interest some of our colleagues. I shall greatly appreciate your comments)

Herewith I respond to item Nos 6.4.2 to 6.4.5 on pages 14 and 15. These are new guidelines which the UGC has proposed and put them on its website with a view to seeking comments/suggestions from concerned quarters. I find the new rules/guidelines extremely discriminatory against the Readers. In fact, it goes against the HRD Notification/ Board guidelines and has sought to curtail the benefits of Readers which they otherwise deserve.
Whosoever has formulated these guidelines/ rules has wrongly understood that the post of Readers is inferior to that of Associate Professor. The Chandha Committee Report has merely changed the nomenclatures from Lectures and Readers to Assistant and Associate Professors. There is no change in substance. That the two positions are not substantially different from one another. It would really be cruel to subject Readers, many of whom were recruited directly on general posts some 12 years ago, to face interview once again to become Associate Professor which in substance is nothing but the old position of Reader. Whosoever has designed this rule has merely exhibited his mental and intellectual bankruptcy.
Senior Readers have been subjected to more humiliation when the framers of the new rules ignored their longer period of service. Today there are Readers with seven or eight years of service; still others have 12 or more years of service because they were unfairly rejected by “hostile administrations” when they sought professorship under CAS. Under the new guidelines they are being placed with the newly-recruited Associate Professor which means their longer period of service as Reader is being treated as insignificant and therefore underserving of any additional monetary incentives. It may be noted that the Fifth Pay Commission had applied the formula of one increment for three increments for all Lectures, Readers and Professors. The Readers who had completed five years of service on 01-01-1996 or attained this mark on 31-12-1996 were placed at Rs 14940/-. This was a genuine recognition of the longer period of service that the Readers had rendered. Fro reasons best known to the UGC or the Sixth Pay Commission, senior Readers are not only being treated unfairly but are also being humiliated. A humiliated army of Readers would not serve the purpose of higher education.
To give concession to the UGC, it might be in the fitness of things to place even the newly and directly recruited Associate Professors in the pay grade of 15600-39000 for three years and thereafter they automatically move to the level of Associate Professor. In an otherwise case, it would be right to conclude that being senior academics is like being a disadvantage, monetarily as well as intellectually.
There is another drawback which I would like to point out. Often academics with independent minds are victimized, so much so that some affected faculties even file cases in the courts. Most such litigations result from the arbitrariness of administrations/ vice chancellors. Some Vice Chancellors even favour their sycophants and indulge in brazen violation of rules/regulations. The UGC must take note of such very real happenings and come out with or set up a grievance redressal mechanism. This might minimize/ prevent victimization at academic campuses.
The main purpose of a teacher is teaching and research and his participation in co-curricular activities is secondary. But surprisingly the API and WP have assigned only 150 points for teaching and even less for research works/ publications. Why the hell anyone would like to supervise a thesis to secure 10 points or write a book to be published by international publishers to obtain 20 points. Instead, he would be well-advised to organize cultural evenings etc to secure 200 points. One wonders if this is the way to promote higher education.
Even more disturbing is the nefarious distinction between Indian and International publications. Does it mean that nay thing published in India is not international? Or what constitutes to be international should have been explained. The impression I have gathered is that things Indian are necessarily condemned to be inferior to things “international”. Foreign academics must be laughing at the inferiority complex of those who have framed these guidelines. In my opinion one must clarify first what is meant by “Indian” and “international” and only then qualify a publication with being inferior or superior. Moreover, I feel, publications, Indian or international, should be given more weightage than extra curricular activities and contribution to corporate life of campuses.
The bureaucracy seems to be avowedly biased against the teaching community. Even a Vice Chancellor would not get parity with them. The Fifth Pay Commission had fixed the salary of a Vice Chancellor at Rs 25000/-, which was on par with that of a secretary of Government of India. The Sixth Pay Commission, however, has degraded Vice Chancellors by fixing their pay at Rs 75000/-. Well, in addition they will get an extra amount of 5000/- as special pay but the fact is that they are equal to additional secretary only, a step below the secretary, Government of India. Heavens would not have fallen, had Vice Chancellor’s salary been fixed at Rs 80,000/-. But this was not to be just to satisfy the bloated ego of the over-rated IAS fraternity.
But the saddest aspect is that the Vice Chancellors have swallowed this bitter pill without protest. There are both good and bad Vice Chancellors. The good ones must have been busy with developing ideas and strategies to develop their institutions. And the bad ones are so much busy with victimizing their independent-minded subordinates that they hardly find time to protect even their own status and honour. But the teaching community also failed as a whole when it did not lodge protest against the degradation of the heads of their institutions.