At NCERT, most recently in a controversy, investigations began with a complaint from the Society for Awareness and Fight against Corruption. The allegation was that Prof Parvin Sinclair, who took charge as director some six months ago, had committed irregularities in the purchase of paper meant for textbooks and pulp board meant for textbook covers. In May, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommended an inquiry against Sinclair.
Says Arjun Dev, a historian and former faculty member of NCERT, “My point is, if there is a complaint, the inquiry should be transparent and findings should be made public. This will contribute positively to belief in the system. In the Sinclair matter, the HRD ministry should make the findings public.”
And J.P. Purohit, general secretary of the body that filed the complaint, concurs. “The inquiry report should be in the public domain to ensure that we continue to keep faith in the system,” he says. “There’s no democracy in the council. If we raise an alarm about any wrongdoing, suspension orders are handed to (junior) people. This is unfair. We want an inquiry against the secretary and the director of the council.”
The other senior academician in trouble is V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai, former vice-chancellor of IGNOU. Inquiries against him have been on for some time, and culminated in the CBI filing a case on July 27. The main allegation is that he granted permission to run distance education courses to two universities in violation of rules. Some officials of his administration and officials of the Punjab Technical University and Sikkim Manipal University, which profited from Pillai’s decision, have also been named.
At the IITs, it’s a matter of promotions despite implication in controversies—with quid pro quo recommendations. IIT Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya is one player, and the other is IIT Bhubaneshwar director Madhusudan Chakraborty. As AICTE chairman from May 2005 to June 2007, Acharya had overruled an expert committee’s report and granted extension of approval for Padmavathi Engineering College, Tirupati, despite the college not having the stipulated faculty strength. The CBI had probed this and recommended departmental action, including major penalties against him. The HRD ministry had also issued a showcause notice to him.
But when the time came for seeking extension of Acharya’s term, he found ready recommendation from Chakraborty. The latter is not free of taint either: he is being probed for the alleged illegal purchase of equipment worth Rs 2.5 crore at IIT Bhubaneshwar. And it is not surprising that among those who recommended Chakraborty’s name for directorship of IIT Bhubaneshwar was Acharya, under whom he had served as dean at Kharagpur.
Another IIT director under the scanner is Prof Anil K. Bhowmick, who is the director of IIT Patna. As dean for sponsored research and consultancy at IIT Kharagpur, Bhowmick had gone against the norms in awarding a software development project to a private firm. Both CAG and CBI have indicted him; in fact, the CBI had recommended “major penalty” (which includes dismissal) against him. But Bhowmick has instead won a promotion; he has been heading IIT Patna since 2009.
Dev says he finds nothing unusual in such promotions. “In the past, I had filed complaints against an NCERT director. The inquiry was conducted but its findings were never made public. And he ended up winning a UNESCO award.”
In comparison to these cases, the goings-on being investigated by CBI at AMU seem of much lesser magnitude. Nevertheless, the very fact that the vice-chancellor of this prestigious university, P.K. Abdul Azis, faces a CBI inquiry is shocking. Though an fir hasn’t yet been lodged, the agency is conducting a preliminary inquiry and has collected nearly 50 files of important university projects in which Azis is alleged to have committed irregularities. Earlier, the Union HRD ministry had set up two panels to investigate him but nothing came out of that. Later, the investigation was handed over to the CBI. Sources said the irregularities related to finances, but refused to divulge more, including the amounts involved.
It seems it’s a season of investigations—rather than research—at our institutions of higher learning.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Bottom line is nothing is sacred in this country (partly because so much is sacred in the country and even the sacred just becomes routine, mundane and everywhere - leading to no importance or value for the sacred). You can buy anyone - only question is for Rs 10 or Crores. An uncle of mine believes it is genetic .... may be he is right .... corruption is now encoded into our gene pool.
No escape .... blame it on the genes.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT