The United States, Israel and the Arabs

Please, not again


Without boldness from Barack Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East.

NO WAR, no peace, is the usual state of affairs between Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East. But every time an attempt at Arab-Israeli peacemaking fails, as Barack Obama did shortly before Christmas, the peace becomes a little more fragile and the danger of war increases. Sadly, there is reason to believe that unless remedial action is taken, 2011 might see the most destructive such war for many years.


One much-discussed way in which war might arise stems from the apparent desire of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons at any cost, and Israel’s apparent desire to stop Iran at any cost. But fear of Iran’s nuclear programme is only one of the fuses that could detonate an explosion at any moment. Another is the frantic arms race that has been under way since the inconclusive war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon. Both sides have been intensively preparing for what each says will be a “decisive” second round.

Such a war would bear little resemblance to the previous clashes between Israel and its neighbours. For all their many horrors, the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009 were limited affairs. On the Israeli side, in particular, civilian casualties were light. Since 2006, however, Iran and Syria have provided Hizbullah with an arsenal of perhaps 50,000 missiles and rockets, many with ranges and payloads well beyond what Hizbullah had last time. This marks an extraordinary change in the balance of power. For the first time a radical non-state actor has the power to kill thousands of civilians in Israel’s cities more or less at the press of a button.


In that event, says Israel, it will strike back with double force. A war of this sort could easily draw in Syria, and perhaps Iran. For the moment, deterrence keeps the peace. But a peace maintained by deterrence alone is a frail thing. The shipment to Hizbullah of a balance-tipping new weapon, a skirmish on the Lebanese or increasingly volatile Gaza border—any number of miscalculations could ignite a conflagration.


From peace process to war process


All of this should give new urgency to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.


Easy enough to say. The question is whether peacemaking can succeed. After striving for almost two years to shepherd Israeli and Palestinian leaders into direct talks, only for this effort to collapse over the issue of settlements, Mr Obama is in danger of concluding like many presidents before him that Arab-Israeli diplomacy is a Sisyphean distraction. But giving up would be a tragic mistake, as bad for America and Israel as for the Palestinians. The instant the peace process ends, the war process begins, and wars in this energy-rich corner of the world usually suck in America, one way or another. Israel will suffer too if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy.


Don’t mediate. Legislate.


Instead of giving up, Mr Obama needs to change his angle of attack. America has clung too long to the dogma that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are the way forward. James Baker, a former secretary of state, once said that America could not want peace more than the local parties did. This is no longer true. The recent history proves that the extremists on each side are too strong for timid local leaders to make the necessary compromises alone. It is time for the world to agree on a settlement and impose it on the feuding parties.


The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments. But there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw.


Mr Clinton unveiled his blueprint at the end of a negotiation that had failed. Mr Obama should set out his own map and make this a new starting point. He should gather international support for it, either through the United Nations or by means of an international conference of the kind the first President Bush held in Madrid in 1991. But instead of leaving the parties to talk on their own after the conference ends, as Mr Bush did after Madrid, America must ride herd, providing reassurance and exerting pressure on both sides as required.


The pressure part of this equation is crucial. In his first round of peacemaking, Mr Obama picked a fight with Israel over settlements and then backed down, thereby making America look weak in a region where too many people already believe that its power is waning (see article). This is a misperception the President needs to correct. For all its economic worries at home and military woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far from weak in the Levant, where both Israel and the nascent Palestine in the West Bank continue to depend on it in countless vital ways.


The Palestinians have flirted lately with the idea of bypassing America and taking their cause directly to the UN. Going to the UN is well and good. But the fact remains that without the sort of tough love that America alone can bestow, Israel will probably never be able to overcome its settler movement and make the deal that could win it acceptance in the Arab world. Mr Obama has shown in battles as different as health reform and the New START nuclear treaty with Russia that he has the quality of persistence. He should persist in Palestine, too.

Chinese prowess

Is China closer than thought to matching U.S. fighter jet prowess?

  Images believed to be China's next generation of military air power have been buzzing around the internet, but Pentagon officials are insisting its appearance does not mean China has matched American air capabilities.

The new stealth fighter jet, known as the J-20, isn't supposed to be operational until at least 2017, but a Chinese air force commander told Chinese TV in 2009 that flight testing would begin much sooner. Stealth jets, such as the United States' F-22, are designed to evade detection by radar and anti-aircraft defenses.
Now unknown sources have posted photos of what appears to be the plane on an airfield runway in southwestern China.

"We are aware of their plans to develop this fifth-generation fighter," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said. "The photos that were released recently are presumably of some taxi testing."
The emergence of the photos come as Defense Secretary Robert Gates heads to China to discuss the military relationship between the U.S. and China. And later this month, President Hu Jintao is headed to Washington for a summit with President Barack Obama.

One China watcher says China's failure to censor the grainy images on the web prove the photos are of the new jet and the country wants them to circulate.

"The Chinese military and the police could have swept the area around the airfield very easily, but what they've done is they've controlled this. They've allowed Chinese to only take photos with cell phones, meaning that the photos that we have are low-resolution, do not give us a great deal of detail about the aircraft and they're put on the web with a low-resolution format," said China military scholar and author Richard Fisher. "The response within China has been overwhelmingly positive and has spurred national pride to an enormous degree."

The Pentagon is taking a low-key approach to the surge in publicity about the Chinese fighter, saying their existing top-of-the-line warplane has engine problems and that their next plane is years away. But Fisher says that timeline could be sped up if the Chinese buy an engine from Russia as opposed to developing it themselves.

"It's something that is in some form of development, as a fifth-generation fighter. As I noted, the Chinese are still having difficulties with their fourth-generation fighter." Lapan said in an off-camera question session with journalists in his office.

And he said that while the new jet was not mentioned in Pentagon's report on China that was sent to Congress in August as an annual update for China's defense capabilities, the Defense Department has talked about it.

"We as a department have publicly spoken about it in the past. It is not as if we have not acknowledged that they are pursuing a fifth-generation fighter," Lapan said. "So we are aware of it. But it is not of concern that they are working on a fifth-generation fighter."

Fisher, however, says it should be a concern, citing the Chinese jet's potential ability to overtake that of America's F-22 in thrust and "supercruise" speed, which is the ability to fly supersonically without using fuel-guzzling afterburners.

"We can't say precisely what the capabilities are, but we have a good idea. Right now, we should be reviving production of the F-22 and not just reviving production, we should be developing an advance version of the F-22," said Fisher. "And sadly even though it is a troubled program, already the F-35 needs another rework. It needs to be made competitive with this fighter."

The F-22 was scaled back in production in 2009. The production of the F-35, which is being developed and tested, could be slowed under Gates' budget-cutting initiative.

In 2009, Gates said that no nation comes close to U.S. air power, and he anticipated the Chinese having only "a handful" of fighters that challenges the U.S. advanced fleets by 2025. But Fisher cautions that this Chinese jet could cause a change in the balance of power in the Pacific.

"Since WWII, the American military has never gone into battle without the assurance of air superiority. China is a rising power, and it is determined to challenge the American position globally," said Fisher. "This fighter will allow them to do that on a military level....and from my perspective, that's simply unacceptable."

"Anti-India"

Teacher arrested for 'anti-India' exam questions

Srinagar, India -- Police in the Indian administered Kashmir arrested a teacher of a local college on charges of writing an exam "with anti-India content."

"We have arrested Noor Mohammad Bhat under (the ) Unlawful Activities Act," Srinagar district police chief, Ashiq Bukhari said.

He said the teacher who teaches English in a college here had written an exam for graduate level examinees with questions attempting "to glorify the Kashmiri stone pelters and to project separatist views."

Bhat had included a question, "Are the stone pelters real heroes? Discuss."

The content of the exam dealt with pro-independence unrest which has lasted more than five months. During the conflict young boys have resorted to pelting Indian security forces with stones ever since the unrest erupted on June 11 after a 17-year old boy was killed in a police action here in Srinigar, the region's capital.
The unrest which has so far claimed 110 lives. It has also left hundreds wounded, some of them left disabled.
The unrest has also seen the arrest of hundreds of youth charged with the offence of stone pelting while scores have gone underground to escape arrest.

Another question on the exam required translation of an Urdu passage into English.

"Kashmir is burning yet again. The blood of the youth is being shed like water. Even young boys are not being spared and are beaten to death by police and security forces. Bullets are being pumped into the chests of young girls and women. Though people across Kashmir are shedding tears of blood, yet the rulers are in deep slumber. Even prayers have turned ineffective," it read.

A student said he was taken aback on seeing the exam and hesitated for some time to answer the questions. "I was perplexed, but later I thought it may be a plan of the government to probe the mind of the young students on the unrest," said Mushtaq Ahmad.

"This is a new dimension added to the unrest after months of shutdowns and curfews," said Abdul Quyoom, a local resident.

The mountainous Kashmir region is divided among Pakistan, China and India. In the past, India has poured thousands of security forces into its part of Kashmir to fight what India called a Pakistan-inspired insurgency. However, since the defeat of the insurgency, Indian forces have found themselves fighting mostly Muslim Kashmiris who say they have suffered oppression and want independence from Hindu-dominated India.

Sathyabama, SRM

Let's start with some facts:

First, AICTE swoops down on institutions offering programs in engineering, issuing them a notice demanding that they get its approval by March 7, 2006 or else. The students panic, go to their respective colleges or university administrations, and seek a clarification about meaning of this AICTE notice. When they don't get a straight answer -- or worse, when they do get one, with all its nasty implications -- they organize protests, some of which lead to violence. Things get pretty rough, particularly at Sathyabama and SRM (both deemed universities).

And then, there is a lull on the streets, and the tussle between AICTE and the colleges/universities is fought in the courts. Both the parties plot their next legal moves. The colleges are set to reopen soon. In the meantime, a student of Satyabama was reported to have commiteed suicide.

Some observations:

• Several people commented on the timing of AICTE notices. It appeared that the institutions were issued these notices a long time ago, but the notices were stayed by a court, and the stay order was revoked sometime in October of 2005. So, this issue had been simmering for a while, and appeared to have reached a flash point. It was not clear if AICTE did anything to make it flare up, but I did not see anything untoward in AICTE's actions; being a bureaucracy, it was (probably) just following routine procedures.
• I don't think there was any dispute about how, after they obtained the 'deemed university' status, these institutions expanded their intake of students by as much as 5 times and introduced new programs. Their case that their status as Deemed Universities gave them these rights -- and that they were not fettered by other regulatory authorities such as AICTE -- was utterly laughable. From a legal viewpoint, AICTE was on a strong wicket; except, of course, that the legal process were to be subverted.
• If AICTE did prevail, the institutions and their managers should have been given strong, exemplary punishments. However, their students -- victims, really -- should have been allowed to transfer to other institutions. Both were unlikely.
• I expected the market for engineering programs were not going to be a sellers' one in the coming years.
• Finally, the highly deplorable role of UGC -- the organization that granted these less-than-stellar institutions the status of a Deemed University -- should have come under harsh scrutiny. I don't know who should have done it, but I certainly did not see our mainstream media doing it. Sigh! 

It is amazing how well our students do in the corporate world despite “education” in our colleges and universities…

Understanding regulation in markets better

Costs relate to the understanding of markets and well, libertarianism. I have my operational reservations against libertarianism but there is need for a better understanding of this animal.

A simple rule often works dramatically well when you apply it consistently. Let who does a damage pay for the damage. There are complexities which go beyond the scope of this post but that should suffice a starting point to think more. The idea is based on the cost incurred in a market setting. 

So if a market does not involve the payment or consideration of externalities than it is a poorly designed market. All that talk about freedom and choice of libertarianism is first-level knowledge. When you understand who is incurring the cost and who should pay for it, you are one level deeper into the complexity of it. The next part is in designing the incentives to make sure that the party who does the damage pays for it or takes into account the costs of his activity that may cause damage.

For the context of what follows read A Nation of Guinea Pigs, but it is not necessary.

The difference between bureaucratic regulation and legislative regulations should be pointed out. Having a government board to clear a clinical trial is bureaucratic regulation. Having a regulation that allows a legal argument between two parties for deciding the costs incurred, in case of a faulty trial, is a legislative regulation.

India has an oversupply of the former and an under supply of the latter, in quality and quantity.

In fact, there is a crying need for regulation. Free-markets need more regulations and litigation. But to equate demand of regulation with government supply of regulation is an usual jump in logic and can be faulted. Today the government does bureaucratic regulation which we know doesn't work and well, won't work. If something goes wrong, you cannot point to the government and ask them for compensation. If the legislative regulation had allowed for litigation and mechanisms like civil tort, you would have a host of lawyers scavenging the grounds of Sevagram. Ultimately the true costs and benefits of guinea-pig treatment would be taken into account by both parties.

In finality, you need more legislative supply of regulations that allow litigation between the parties directly, not bureaucratic ones that distort the market of costs.

AICTE: Waking up from 61 years of slumber

May a million flowers bloom, said Chairman Mao. And one day, on a whim, he went and razed the garden.

In India, flowers and gardens remain scarce but a million other things bloom. Illegal construction. Unregulated educational institutions. Until one fine day, someone wakes up and commands, "Hatao!"

But this is not China, so people take to the streets in protest. Like the students of Satyabhama engineering college and SRM Institute of Science and Technology - both deemed universities. Hundreds of students of these colleges held demonstrations demanding to know the status and validity of their degrees.

This followed a notice from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) which apparently stated that B.Tech degrees awarded by deemed universities would not be recognised, unless the courses were approved by the council.

Students of the Dr. MGR Deemed University and Bharat Engineering College had gone on strike for four days on the same issue, a few days ago.

The colleges were battling it out in court, and said that since they had UGC approval they did not come under the purview of AICTE.

What took so long?
The sad part was, in all these ‘technical’ discussions of eligibility and approval, the fate of thousands of students who took admission in good faith hung in balance.

We do need a regulatory body but clearly, AICTE is like an old and toothless ayah running around and shouting, “Children, don’t be naughty.” What else could one say about a regulatory body which, Kumbhakaran-like, awakes from its stupor once every 5 decades or so?

Did you know that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was first set-up in November 1945??!!! Yup, that’s what it says on their website and honestly it was news to me.

AICTE was meant to be: "a national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct survey on the facilities on technical education and to promote development in the country in a coordinated and integrated manner."

But something, somewhere went awry. So…

The Government of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development) constituted a National Working Group to look into the role of AICTE in the context of proliferation of technical institutions, maintenance of standards and other related matters. The Working Group recommended that AICTE be vested with the necessary statutory authority for making it more effective, which would consequently require restructuring and strengthening with necessary infrastructure and operating mechanisms.

Wonderful. Is that why AICTE was suddenly getting so active? Er, not exactly. These recommendations were made in 1987 !! The AICTE Act came into force a year later…

The statutory All India Council for Technical Education was established on May 12, 1988 with a view to proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith.

Phew – quite a mouthful. But no one had a clue where AICTE was in the 1990's when engineering, management and medical colleges were mushrooming all over the country.

Many of these colleges were started by politicians, and flouted every conceivable norm (‘technical institutes’ in sheds with tin roofs for example – that was the state of some colleges in New Bombay when they first came up). Money and muscle power ensured AICTE looked the other way.

Now, the powers that be were keen to rectify the situation. AICTE was publishing notice after notice in newspapers imploring technical institutes to apply for accreditation – and threatening legal action against those who do not comply. But colleges are thinking, we’re all in it together – can they really shut down hundreds of us?

Well, Amity Business School’s flagship PGDM course actually lost its AICTE accreditation in September 2005 after failing to meet prescribed norms. Amity also lost the subsequent case in the Allahabad High Court challenging the AICTE order.

But surely in the course of an entire year it could not have been the only institute found unworthy of accreditation? Why was so much speed shown in revoking Amity’s accreditation while others received only threats and warnings??

The point being that unless AICTE was perceived as being fair, impartial and speedy in its actions it would never be taken seriously.

Secondly, however badly a college may have sinned revoking accreditation in the middle of an academic year was senseless. All such announcements must be made before the start of a session and must apply to new admissions – not students already enrolled!

The Tamil Nadu tangle
I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the scene in Tamil Nadu but I do know that SRM and Satyabhama were – at least till a couple of years ago – well respected colleges. Students rated them in the top 10 in the state and SRM even produced ‘state rank holders '.

Then, they became deemed universities and according to this news report, went in for reckless expansion

The Tamil daily Dinamalar, in its report dated 2 September 2003, had highlighted the massive expansion of capacity by the SRM Engineering College: "on obtaining the deemed university status, SRM Engineering College has admitted 2000 students netting in Rs.300 crore. In the much sought-after ECE course, 600 students had been admitted. A complaint on this had been sent to the chief minister's office, which has initiated an enquiry."

The complaint pointed out that the college, which until 2005, had a total strength of just 2000, had admitted more than 2000 fresh students that year. Against the optimum strength of around 50 per class, that year, it had admitted 80 students in each section for the ECE course collecting Rs.2 lakh per student. It is gathered that the principal had opted to resign unable to cope with this crowd.

Can current students throw some further light on the situation? Are they satisfied with their course?? And if all is above board what is the institute’s problem in applying for AICTE accreditation anyways???

AICTE cannot take action against Deemed Universities: HC
The Madras High Court ruled that the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) had the authority to inspect deemed universities but any action against them could be only taken by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan made the observation while quashing a public notice issued by the AICTE in February last, warning of stringent legal action against Deemed Universities which conducted new courses and programmes, without its prior approval.

Disposing of petitions filed by about 20 deemed universities in Tamil Nadu, the judges pointed out that according to a UGC communication, "the AICTE may visit the university department or constituent college and send its final report to the the UGC for final approval".

Noting that the AICTE team conducting any inspection of deemed universities had the representation of the UGC, the bench said if the UGC did not depute such a member within a reasonable time, the AICTE could proceed to conduct the inspection and forward its report to the UGC for action.

Referring to the notices sent by the AICTE and the UGC calling for information regarding the courses offered and those introduced after being declared Deemed Universities and whether UGC approval had been taken, the bench directed all universities to respond to the notices within four weeks if they had not done so.
The Madras High Court, in an interim direction relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, has instructed the former to issue a public notice advising students to attend classes.

Reserving its final order, a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan said the AICTE in its advertisement should mention that students must return to their colleges, since failure to attend classes would result in their losing an academic year.

It must be published in English and Indian language newspapers, the judges said.

The bench indicated that orders would be pronounced in the third week of May and observed that all deemed universities must take prior permission from the UGC before starting new courses.

The AICTE could be part of the inspection team mandated to visit deemed universities, the judges added.
The Madras High Court had asked AICTE to furnish details based on which it issued a press notice on February 16, 2006 stipulating that all institutions offering technical education should apply for AICTE approval on or before March 7, 2006.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan, hearing a batch of petitions relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, also asked counsel for the AICTE as to why it issued such a press notice only in respect of deemed universities located in Tamil Nadu.

During the course of arguments, the Bench also observed that there seemed to be an "overlapping of interests" in the Anna University Vice-Chancellor holding an additional charge of the Chairman of the Southern Regional Committee of the AICTE.

In his submissions, K. Chandru, senior counsel for the UGC, contended that the AICTE should give its inputs about the infrastructure and intake of deemed universities only when its advice is sought for. The UGC need not act on the unsolicited advice from the AICTE, he said, adding that similarly the Ministry of Human Resources Development was not bound by the unsolicited inputs from either of the statutory bodies. Such an advice was mandatory and not directory in nature, he said.

In April 2005 the UGC wrote to deemed universities calling upon them furnish information relating to academic standards, infrastructure and intake in their institutions. Maintaining that the Commission was processing the response, Mr. Chandru said if the amenities in these institutions were found unsatisfactory the UGC would recommend to the Central Government to revoke their deemed university status. If they met the requirements they would be accorded recognition, he added.

G. Rajagopal, senior counsel for the Thanjavur-based SASTRA Deemed University, submitted that the institution was open to inspection irrespective of the agency involved in the process. He said all relevant information called for by the statutory agencies had already been submitted by the administration.
The UGC and the AICTE “have no idea how to maintain standards”, said former IIT Madras director PV Indiresan. “Their culture is bureaucratic; they think that national accreditation will do. Even a simple observation of the number of responsible assessors needed to monitor 17,000 odd colleges will show that centralised accreditation is not the answer.”

In a recent survey in Businessworld, 64 per cent of the recruiters surveyed said AICTE accreditation is not important. One of the top business schools in India — the Indian School of Business (ISB) — did not have AICTE accreditation. Madras HC moved againt Anna Varsity VC for holding a sensitive post in AICTE.

Who says office of profit issue is concerned only with politicians. In the case of Anna University VC you know which one is office of profit. Remember that one of the solutions in the AICTE (All Included Commission for offering Technical Education)Vs Tamilnadu Deemed Universities was that these deemed universities loosened their deemed status and get doomed meaning affiliated to Big Brother Anna University.


Is AICTE nod obligatory for deemed university?

AICTE had been immature and in many ways unprofessional. It was time that it became a truly professional outfit for guiding the growth of technical education in the country or packup and vanish.

Although AICTE was vested with statutory powers by an Act of Indian Parliament in 1987 with the mandate to organise, plan and administer technical education in the country, Way back in September 2001, the Supreme Court of India had given a judgment that it was not obligatory for a university, created under an Act of a competent legislature, to seek and secure prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE ) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection.

The Supreme Court Bench which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju had set aside the verdict of the Madras High Court ( HC ) - which held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant- Bharathidasan University to secure prior approval of the AICTE to commence the specified technical courses.

The Bench, on close analysis of the relevant provisions of the AICTE Act 1987, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, pointed out that the clear intention of the legislature ( in enacting the AICTE Act ) was not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as technical institutions covered by the ( AICTE ) Act.

The Bench had pointed out that if that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of technical institution by not excluding university from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words technical institutions and university in several provisions in the Act.

The Bench had also observed that the definition of technical institution excluded from its purview a university, and when by definition a university was excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occured will include a university will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein.

The Bench had further added that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) which would not cover a university but only a technical institution.

The Bench had noted that if Section 10 ( k ) of AICTE act did not cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation could not be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a university and a technical institution.

AICTE had been sponsoring short term training programmes at SRM Deemed University and today AICTE says SRM degrees were good for nothing!!. Probably there was no cooperation between the sponsorship cell of AICTE and Accreditation Cell of AICTE!!. It was time AICTE was accredited by someone competent.

Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IITs and IIMs. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions?

AICTE and Deemed University Case for Contra Proferentum Rule:

If in a legally enforceable agreement between two or more competent agencies any ambiguity arises, the interpretation should be against the party seeking to rely on it i.e. proferer or the person who drafted the document.

War clouds had gathered over the Madras High court in the sensational case between the Deemed universities and AICTE ( All India Council for Technical Education ) for which the final verdict is awaited.

The AICTE act 1987 states "To provide for establishment of an All India council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith."

The above makes it obligatory that for proper planning and regulation of quantitative growth and coordinated development of Technical Education, AICTE act should have included that universities deemed or otherwise must be required to take its approval for offering technical education.

The Supreme Court of India Bench Judgement in September 2001 had clearly stated that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) of AICTE Act which would not cover a university. It clearly emerged that AICTE nod was not obligatory for a university in this context.

If that was the case, then why was AICTE still claiming in its combined Regulations for Requirement of Grant of Approval which stated that "No course or programme shall be introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or University Department or College" EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL.

However, AICTE claimed that the other Sections of the AICTE Act 1987 such as Section 10( o ) and 11 empowered the AICTE to prescribe guidelines for admissions and inspection of deemed universities.

It was clear that in the AICTE Act there was an ambiguity between the various Sections as one of them 10( k ) states that the term Technical Institution did not include University while AICTE claims that in other Sections the term Technical Institution included University.

If AICTE Act was an agreement regarding mutual responsibilities between two or more parties, then it amounted to a Contract between the Law Enforcers ( AICTE ) and the Law Abiders ( Deemed Universities ).

Contra Proferentum is the Rule that is applied when interpreting a clause, in an action that says that, where ambiguity as to a terms meaning exists, it should be read against the party who wrote it. That is, the preferred interpretation will be the one that helps the party who drafted it the least. The reasoning behind this Rule is to encourage the drafter of the agreement to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as possible.

Clearly, the drafters of the AICTE Act had failed in this account and they had to face the music of Contra Proferentum Rule and let the Deemed Universities retain their autonomy in birth as well as functioning. Whoever gave birth to Deemed University only should hold the right to ring the Death Bell for them and middle men of the AICTE kind should keep safe distance.

According to the Vice Chancellor of the Anna University Prof D Viswanathan, there were four lakh engineering graduates unemployed in Tamilnadu and the writing on the wall was clear that bulk of this number came from the so called AICTE approved Institutions in Tamilnadu and not the Deemed Universities !!!!.
Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IIT's and IIM's. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions? Now read the following and decide.

As per latest news, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi has been facing a severe shortage of faculty.

Twenty-four departments in IIT-D are short-staffed. "There are 72 vacant positions for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors," according to Assistant Director(administration) D.P. Kothari.

AICTE's policies regarding conformance to their academic policies are fairly rigid. It is an improper move to declare such a notice after everyone has committed themselves to an institute. I don't understand the point in removing institutes which have been successful from their inception. As said in the post, it is the facilities that need to be checked and as long as the standards are complied with AICTE should have no trouble with these insititutes.

It is not just the recognition part ,but a bigger malaise that is eating the system. Spare a thought for the faculty at such establishments. Most of the lecturers are in the transitional mode between their own graduation and a real job.

A typical visit by the AICTE team would be characterized by sprucing up of the lawns & facilities. Endless plates of Kaju and Baadam would be consumed and Cola bottles circulated. ExIIT professors ( alleged visting faculty )would mysteriously appear in full strength and disappear just as suddenly till another team arrives... .

Every year NASSCOM comes out with figures that the IT sector is falling short of qualified manpower..on the other hand we are churning out Engineers faster than bunny litter...

The solution is not in the hands of the government. The corporate sector would have to assume greater role...update the curriculum, engage the faculty and actually authenticate the utility by recruiting from the less fortunate colleges.

Expansion by itself is not a bad thing - doing so without inadequate teachers, facilities etc is what needs to be checked.

Between the out and out commercialism (of colleges) and the out and out bureacucracy (of AICTE) lies a middle ground which desperately needs to be explored.

Budget 2011 - my two bits

I am not in the habit of following the budget speech. But there's a first time for everything and I did tune in for some years. Mainly because I had to see 'what the budget did/ did not do for the youth'.

Listening to the FM's budget speech in full evoked in me a feeling similar to watching the annual Republic Day Parade. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, rural employment, mid-day meal and assorted other schemes named after members of the Gandhi-Nehru family were the first to march past.

I felt like making a trip to the nearest electrified village and doing a jig to the tune of 'thodi si dhool meri, dharti ki meri vatan ki'…If there is a road to reach that village in the first place.

Call me a cynic but this is how most of Young India feels when politicians rattle out statistics about 'development'. Seeing is believing and we don't like the dump of a country we see around a few islands of opulence and excellence.

Ironically, the FM's make a statement about young people building 'castles in the air'!

But sir, we're glad you used the word 'castle' and not humble jhopdi, or 1 room PWD apartment. We're glad that you approve of young India thinking and dreaming big. So are you.

Leaving aside the 'announcements' on duty cuts and tax tweaks which experts are better placed to analyse, what pleased me were some of the vision statements. Imagine an India where you don't have to stand in line to file a police complaint, get a birth certificate or register as a voter. Where you can demand information from government departments under the Right to Information Act through an online application.

No science fiction, that. The FM's plan to bring sarkari services online under a National E-governance plan. A more efficient and accountable government? Now that is something we will thank the FM for long after we've forgotten about cheaper soft drinks and Santros.

Speaking of thanks, students of Mumbai, Madras and Kolkata universities will be pleased with the Rs 50 crores allocated to each institution, in recognition of their completing 150 years. This is great news, except for the fact that the FM wants this money to be used for 'a specified research department or a research programme' when the problems that need to be addressed are far more basic!

And yet, as the minutes tick on, as achievements and proposed achievements parade by, you can't help getting carried away by a sense of pride. This is more just a 'budget', it is a document defining hope.

Because a budget implies 'living within one's means'. To which the young person's answer is I am not satisfied with that. Allow me to grow.

India is now a growth story and there is no looking back. What's more, the Finance Minister's end their speech with the immortal words of Swami Vivekananda, "We reap what we sow. We are the makers of our own fate. … our own destiny." Which is exactly what the young people of this country now believe.

For the underprivileged, the budget must continue to sow opportunities. And for the rest of us, allow us to enjoy the fruits of our own harvest.

There was more I wanted to say but could not due to the word limit. So here goes...

On education: The thrust of the budget outlay in education is towards primary and rural - rightly so. But higher education can't be left to fend for itself.

IISc Bangalore recieved Rs 100 crores in last to last year's budget towards upgradation and modernisation. Last year another well deserved Rs 100 crores went to Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

But what about a comprehensive policy that aims to upgrade all mediocre institutes to excellent ones, and the excellent to outstanding?

And also a quality control mechanism for private education. These are issues which of course need a whole separate forum for debate but if the primary schooling program is successful - imagine how many fold demand for higher education will increase say 10 years from now. And then, universities and colleges can't be set up or upgraded overnight!

On entrepreneurship: The Ministry of Finance has a pretty cool website where you can actually watch a webcast of the FM's speech and access budget speeches from previous years.

If you run a word search through the speeches you will find the word 'entrepreneur' used number of times.

Last year's speech specifically referred to young people building castles - and the FM said it is 'our job to lay the foundation for those castles'. So we enable you and you go out and create your own future.

Hope this translates to better power, roads, public transport - and other infrastructure which will allow us to be productive, not hassled citizens.

I am intrigued by this statement in particular: Recognize SMEs in the services sector, and treat the small scale enterprises in the services sector on par with the small scale enterprises in the manufacturing sector.

If this meant access to credit for entrepreneurs in the service sector it would be a great step forward. The idea of a world of commerce where you don't have plant and machinery to pledge as collateral remains alien to the loan officer in the average PSU bank. And this is a stumbling block for entrepreneurs, young and old alike.

On accountability and follow up: Not to say the FM's lie but achievements like '10,366 villages electrified' are - I hope - published separately and verified by independent agencies.

Lastly, this article in FE raises the pertinent question: Where are yesterday's budget ideas?

Before this year’s budget comes up with another list of new schemes for rural India and the environment, it may be worthwhile to look at where we have progressed with regard to some of the big announcements of earlier budgets.

The restoration of water bodies, the launching a horticulture mission, subsidies for micro-irrigation and the launching of a mega bio diesel plan were some of the major initiatives meant to breathe new life into India’s rural economy.

Unfortunately, by the time these schemes made their way through several ministries, it was already December 2005. With the end of the financial year round the corner, there was the usual rush to release money. In terms of actual work, however, there was very little to report.

Budgets I guess, have lost their relevance currently. Gone are the days when people used to assemble to hear luminaries like Nani Palkiwala give their take on the budget. The 91 budget was suppossed to be path breaking ..what did the newspapers report on the following say ..nobody told that india was entering a new era ..even now the major reforms are happening, but the budget is no indicator of the real policies and financial condition.

Doing away with the standard deduction for the salaried. So now the generally-no-way-out-of-the-tax salaried person is in the same league as a businessman, who has umpteen ways to hide his real income! Also sad to see the industry honchos giving unusually high marks to the FM. Why have such surveys in the first place when you know the boot licking industrialist won't dare say a word in earnest, for the fear of IT raids and other such govt retribution, if he publicly critises the FM.

What a whimper of  budgets from the FM's. Seems like they are braindead...

Tax ATM usage. What!??

Wait there's more. Tax credit cards and debit cards further. Nuts !??!!

Umbrellas to cost more. Packaged food and poultry products to cost less, icecreams to cost less... blah blah !!

It seems like those old oppressive Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh day budgets, where they decided the prices of little items like soap, detergents, toothbrushes, safety pins etc.

And in 2005, P.Chidambaram came up with the funniest harebrained idea .. withdrawal tax. If you withdraw your *own* money from the bank, you will be taxed.. ha haha.. 


Regarding grants to Universities, it seemed IISc haven't received 100 crores that it was granted last year. And, I can't vouch when will Madras, Bombay and Calcutta Universities receive their promised grants!! It happens only in India!!

And, in the last budget, there was an allocation of 1000 crores for a Desalination Plant in Chennai. Not a single word about that has come yet! Who is responsible? State or Central? What happens to such allocated but not spent money?

"But higher education can't be left to fend for itself. "

Primary and secondary education give far more social returns than higher / professional education.

Higher education should be liberalized and private players should be allowed to enter. The government should only set up an independent regulatory agency like the TRAI for the higher education sector. And yes, FDI should be allowed. Today, people are willing to pay for education. For those who can't, the private sector should offer scholarships to promising candidates. The not-so-promising ones can always get a loan - the banks will only be too happy to advance loans to students of good universities.

By giving a free rein to the market forces, the quality of education will automatically improve and stupid anomalies will disappear. It is good for the country to realise that it is the youth of this country that is going to take the country forward not someone like our esteemed politicians who are hell bend on wasting the country's money. For any development, infrastructure, transport and power is important. Unless and until we improve those, we will not be moving forward.

Does any one really verify the gibberish that is thrown by politicians in the form of data. I am really interested to know where from these data are collected. If they can never be verified, whatever one says is true isn't it?
With the prices of all commodities rising every year and no substantial salary increase of the common man, where from can they squeeze out a comfortable life? Has anything been done to answer these questions.

"For the underprivileged, the budget must continue to sow opportunities. And for the rest of us, allow us to enjoy the fruits of our own harvest." 

Hope the media, NGO's and development agencies continue to discuss, debate, push and nag the government every week, every month to implement its plans and show results for allocations. And not just wake up next year on Feb 27th!