Limited actors
Although it’s derisively referred to as the idiot box for the shallow, ephemeral infotainment it provides, the power of television news channels to expose ground realities in some of the country’s hidden areas of darkness cannot be matched by the print media. A case in point is CNN-IBN’s excellent multi-episode documentary titled No Country for Children being broadcast over the past few weeks, which graphically depicts the mind boggling deprivations — pervasive malnutrition, poor schooling conditions, sexual abuse and corporal punishment — that the nation’s 480 million children, especially the 158 million under age five, are heir to. The programme unsparingly aired government schools without furniture, drinking water, toilets and in one depressing instance — surrounded by overflowing sewage. Yet while emotions of shock, anger, and outrage aroused by the visual media can’t be generated by cold print, the economics of television news ensures the anger and indignation is short-lived. The No Country for Children episodes are punctuated by commercials plugging bling luxury products. One can’t help feeling that hyper-ventilating anchors and reporters of television news channels are mere actors playing a part for the reportedly astronomical sums they are paid. This sentiment is supported by the unwillingness of the celebrity anchors/editors of TV news channels to take a step beyond ritual lamentation and breast-beating about the callous neglect of the country’s children. Repeated offers by this publication to the top three English news channels to make common cause with us for root and branch education reform have not elicited any response. Emoting faux concern they are unable to rise above petty prejudices and insecurities in the cause of the country’s much-abused children. Mighty fallen Less than a century ago, it was the world’s most powerful nation and the centre of the civilized world renowned for its poets, writers and litterateurs. But now with the sun having irrevocably set for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this former colonial power seems to be sinking into utter mediocrity. Last summer an execrable novel titled 50 Shades of Grey written by a puddle shallow English housewife — one E.L. James — became a national bestseller despite a ridiculous story line, featuring every cliché and stereotype and loaded with sadomasochistic sex. With reported sales of 70 million copies, a number greater than the population of the sceptred isle (62 million), how this repetitive, boring and desperate to shock novel enthralled the descendants of Shakespeare, Dryden, Pope, Wordsworth etc boggles the imagination. Nor is the astonishing success of 50 Shades in Blighty a one-off case of summer madness. This autumn the latest Bridget Jones — a fictional woman character whose troubled emotional life spawned the bestseller Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) and a globally acclaimed movie — novel Mad About the Boy has captured the imagination of Brits who seem to have resorted to greed, gluttony and sex big time. But although it’s considered stuffy to protest against the tidal wave of pornography sweeping the West and spreading through the internet imbalancing…
Schools by other names
– Rahul Singh is the former editor of Reader’s Digest, Indian Express and Khaleej Times In the latest THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings 2013-14 published in October, none of India’s 33,000 colleges and 659 universities are ranked among the Top 200. As usual, the THE league tables are headed by American and British universities — California Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, University of California (Berkeley) etc. Several Asian varsities are ranked among the Top 50, such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Singapore and Seoul universities, as well as China’s Tsinghua and Beijing universities. We have to go to the Top 400 in THE World University Rankings league table to find any reference to India. Punjab University, believe it or not, is India’s top-ranked (#226-50) followed by IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Kharagpur and IIT-Roorkee (351-400). India’s vintage Bombay, Calcutta and Madras universities, established in 1857 and Delhi University (1922) are conspicuously absent from the Top 400. More tragic is the fact that the gap between Indian and foreign universities is widening. Ten years ago, Jawaharlal Nehru University’s department of social sciences was ranked a commendable 42. Now, it’s nowhere in the Top 400. The gap between foreign and Indian universities is widening because there is declining comprehension in the academy about the meaning and purpose of post-secondary education. Post-independence India’s academics tend to view college as an extension of school. There’s little awareness that higher ed institutions need to provide liberal environments in which students acquire academic as well as broad-based life skills and lifestyle education. The difference between collegiate education in India and abroad became clear to me way back in the 1960s when I was pulled out of St. Stephen’s, Delhi — one of India’s best liberal colleges — by my father and made to write the entrance exam to King’s College, Cambridge University (UK). I passed the exam and that’s how I found myself as a student of one of the world’s Top 10 universities. Among the first things that struck me at Cambridge was the wide choice of extra-curricular activities — debating, film, photography, dramatics, sports — available to students. The point is that while pursuing studies, one had the opportunity to also develop a variety of life skills. The Cambridge Union (debating society) sharpened the communication skills of innumerable British and non-native politicians and leaders including our very own Mani Shankar Aiyar, while the rival Oxford Union honed the skills of the likes of the late Benazir Bhutto. It was official policy not only to encourage academic excellence but also develop students with well-rounded personalities. Interaction and socialisation between the sexes was accepted as natural, and ‘bird-and-bottle’ parties were de rigueur. Moreover, unlike Indian universities, it’s not mandatory to attend a mini-mum number of lectures at Cambridge; you are free to opt out of all lectures as the university authorities presume you are adult enough to decide for yourself. According to Deepak Nayyar, a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and a former vice chancellor of…