बाज़ार

ज़िन्दगी दुकान हो गयी अब तो

जीना बन गया है एक सौदा

अहसास हैं अब कीमत हमारी

समझ है इन्वेस्टमेंट पोटेंशियल हमारा

शिक्षा अब एक नया व्यवसाय है

खेती मृत्यु का नया रास्ता 

लेखनी अब बर्बादी है वक़्त की

चित्र हैं अब टाइम पास

बात करना खौफ की भाषा है

दुःख बांटना कमजोरी की निशानी

हँसना एक उधार है

प्यार है आंतरिक कमजोरी

हम सब क्रेता और विक्रेता हैं

ये धरती है एक उभरता बाज़ार 

हम सब बिकते हैं यहाँ

जो नहीं बिक पाते वो

निश्चित तौर पर होंगे

कम मार्किट वैल्यू के लोग

इसीलिए मिलते ही पूछता हूँ

क्या है साथी तुम्हारा भाव

शेयर या सट्टा बाज़ार में

इंसान नहीं वस्तु  हैं हम,

स्वागत नयी आर्थिक और राजनितिक व्यवस्था

और नयी दुनिया.

किसानो की आत्महत्या: कुछ अनछुए सवाल

किसानो की आत्महत्या: कुछ अनछुए सवाल

किसानों की आत्महत्या के समाचार ने पुरे देश की आत्मा को हिलाकर रख दिया है. सब स्तब्ध हैं, आश्चर्यचकित हैं, पर खामोश भी हैं. कहीं कहीं कभी कभी किसी कोने से कोई आवाज़ उठ जाती है. कुछ समय तक सरगर्मी बनती है. अख़बारों की , टेलीविज़न चैनलों की सुर्खियाँ बनती है. और फिर जून के महीने की आंधी की तरह रेत की एक चादर उढ़ाकर खामोश हो जाती है. इन सब जनमानस को जगाने के लिए फिर जरुरत पड़ती है एक और क़ुरबानी की, एक और आत्महत्या की.

हम सब सवाल पूछ रहे है, की आखिर ऐसा क्यों हैं, ऐसा क्या हो रहा है जिससे परेशान हो, त्रस्त हो कर एक इंसान अपनी जान खुद ही लेने पर उतारू हो जाता है. क्या कहीं कुछ ऐसा हो रहा है जो हम समझ नहीं पा रहे. शायद नहीं. हमने समझ लिया है इस पूरी समस्या को. किसान आत्महत्या करते है  क्योंकि उनकी फ़सल खराब हो गयी, या फिर वो क़र्ज़ नहीं चूका पाया. अन्य शब्दों में अगर कहें, अपनी कमजोर आर्थिक स्थिति के कारण किसान आत्महत्या करते हैं. इस नतीजे पर पहुंचकर हमने इस समस्या को एक आयाम दे दिया. अब हम जानते है की मुद्दा क्या है, या यूँ कहें की कारण क्या है. कारण स्पष्ट है.आर्थिक हालत.

पर क्या वास्तव में ये मुद्दा है, क्या सच में ये कारण है. यहीं पहुंचकर मैं अपने आप से कुछ सवाल पूछता हूँ. क्या वास्तव में देश का किसान अपने आप को आर्थिंक रूप से इतना कमजोर पता है की उसके लिए आत्महत्या जैसा क़दम उठाने को तैयार हो जाता है?

कुछ सवालों के जवाब के लिए इतिहास में जाना ज़रूरी है. बहुत सारे इतिहासकारों और समज्शाश्त्रियों ने भारत की ग्रामीण व्यवस्था पर लिखा है, उसकी कृषि व्यवस्था पर भी लिखा है (श्रीनिवास, देसाई, गुप्ता, हबीब, मुख़र्जी इत्यादि). अगर इन सब लेखों को देखें और आज की ग्रामीण स्थिति की तुलना हम उस समय की ग्रामीण स्थिति या कृषि व्यवस्था (इससे मेरा आशय हरित क्रांति से पहले के समय से है) से करें तो हम पातें हैं की जीवन स्तर, चाहे वो गाँव में हो, या किसान का हो, या फिर अन्य वर्गों का हो, बेहतर हुआ है. अब पहले से बेहतर अवसर है, सुविधाएँ हैं, तथा जानकारियां भी हैं. सरकारी नीतियों की पहुँच अब पहले से बेहतर हुई है.

आज़ादी से पहले, जब सूखे की समस्या कहीं ज्यादा विकट थी, किसान पैसे या आर्थिक सहायता के लिए केवल साहूकार, या  फिर परिवार के दुसरे लोगों पर निर्भर रहता था. पर अगर हम इतिहास के पन्नों को पलटकर देखें तो पाएंगे की इन सब विकट परिस्थितियों में भी किसान, चाहे वो कितना भी ग़रीब, असहाय, क्यों न हो, अपनी जान लेने की नहीं सोचता था. उसमें मुश्किल हालातों से लड़ने की ताकत कहीं जयादा थी. चाहे वो बुंदेलखंड हो, तेलंगाना हो, बाड़मेर और जैसलमेर का रेगिस्तान हो या फिर मराठवाड़ा हो, किसानो की परेशानियों से हारकर आत्महत्या की खबर न तो हमें सरकारी आंकड़ों में मिलती है और न ही इन जगहों के लोक कहानियों या लोक गीतों में. हाँ शहादत में अपनी जान देना अवश्य मिलता है पर परेशानियों से नहीं.

इन्हीं विकटताओं के बीच ही इस देश के किसान ने आज़ादी के आन्दोलन से लेकर, भक्ति आन्दोलन, तथा जमींदारी के खिलाफ आन्दोलन किया. उस समय इन आंदोलनों में भाग लेने पर पैसे भी नहीं मिलते थे और न ही रेलियों में हिस्सा लेने पर मजदूरी मिलती थी, और शायद मैं अगर ये कहूँ की किसी के पक्ष में होने पर न तो शराब बनती थी और न ही पैसे बांटे जाते थे तो ग़लत नहीं होगा. पर तब भी किसान इन आंदोलनों में हिस्सा लेते थे. आखिर क्यों. हमारे साथी आशुतोष वार्ष्णेय ने इस सवाल को अपनी एक पुस्तक में उठाया पर बिना कोई उत्तर दिए छोड़ दिया क्योंकि ये वाकई एक पेचीदा सवाल है. ऐसा नहीं है की मेरे पास इसका कोई जवाब है. पर हाँ एक बात तो मैं कह सकता हूँ और शायद आप मानेंगे भी की किसानों में लड़ने की क्षमता थी. वो जीवन, प्रकृति, ग़रीबी से हारे नहीं थे. आज की तरह.

येही मेरा आज सवाल है की आखिर आज जब दुनियावी भाषा में समझे तो परिवर्तन आया है पर तब तक किसान हार चूका था. पर अब हमारा सवाल कुछ दूसरा हो चूका है. आज का सवाल है की किसान को अगर आर्थिक तौर पर बेहतर बना दिया जाये तो उसका परेशानी का स्तर कम हो जायेगा.

पर अगर ऐसा है तो सवाल ये है की शहरों में रहने वाले माध्यम वर्ग के लोग आत्महत्या क्यों करते हैं. अगर हम सरकारी आंकड़ों को देखें तो पता चलता है की एक बहोत बड़ी संख्या में (किसानों से भी अधिक) आत्महत्या के केस शहरों में दर्ज किये गए हैं. एनी शब्दों में अगर में सीधे तोर पर से सवाल पूछूं की कहीं ऐसा तो नहीं की विकास में इस मॉडल का एक परिणाम सीधे तोर पर आत्महत्या ही है. अगर ऐसा है तो फिर हम आत्महत्या की समस्या के समाधान के लिए बार बार इसी मॉडल की वकालत क्यों कर रहे हैं?

बहरहाल, मैं फिर से अपने मुख्य प्रशन पर आना चाहता हूँ की ऐसा क्या था की इतनी सारी आर्थिक, भोगोलिक और सामाजिक समस्याएं होते हुए भी लोग आत्महत्या जैसा कदम नहीं उठाते थे पर आज जब इन समस्यायों से हम धीरे धीरे निजात पा रहे हैं तो हम मोत के कुएं में गिरते जा रहे हैं.

मुझे लगता है हमें ये सवाल कम से कम पूछना और सोचना चाहिए की क्या वास्ताव में अर्थव्यवस्था ही एक कारण है या फिर कुछ और कारण है जो हम देख नहीं पा रहे.

अगर मनोविज्ञान की मानें तो हर इन्सान में परेशानियाँ किसी न किसी रूप में, एक सोच में छुपी रहती हैं. बस कुछ लोगों में वो अपने चरम पर पहुँच कर अपनी ही मोत का कारण बन जाती है. ऐसा नहीं हैं की ये प्रवर्तियाँ जन्मजात होती हैं. ये इंसान के सामाजिक परिवेश से ही विकसित होती हैं. पर से सामाजिक परिवेश होता क्या है. विज्ञानियों का मानना है की से सामाजिक परिवेश होता है एक समुदाय आधारित व्यवस्था जिसमें व्यव्क्ति के पास अपने सुख दुःख बाँटने तथा विविध सामाजिक गतिविधियों में शामिल होने के अवसर रहते हैं. जैसे जैसे ये सामजिक परिवेश बदलता है और ये समुदाय आधारित व्यवस्था समाप्त होती है या फिर धीरे धीरे व्यक्तिवादी व्यवस्था इसका स्थान लेने लगी है वैसे वैसे व्यक्ति के तनाव को क्षीण करने वाले ये साधन भी या तो समाप्त होने लगते हैं या फिर अपना महत्व खो देते हैं.

नयी व्यवस्था में कुछ लोग तो नयी साधनों के साथ चल पड़ते हैं पर कुछ वर्ग ऐसे भी होते हैं जो पुराणी व्यवस्था में पूरी तरह समाये होते हैं तथा उनके लिए उससे निकलना तथा नयी व्यवस्था का हिस्सा बन जाना बहुत मुश्कित या नामुमकिन सा होता है. येही वर्ग आत्महत्या के लिए सबसे अधिक कमजोर होता है.

अब सवाल ये है की वो कौनसे ऐसे परिवर्तन है जो इस वर्ग को सबसे अधिक प्रभावित करते है तथा की प्रकार हम सामाजिक व्यवस्था में इस वर्ग की पहचान कर सकते हैं. इसका जिक्र में अगले लेख में करना चाहूँगा

सुधीर

मुझसे दूर 

हो सकता है तुम्हें लगता हो
मेरा फ़ोन न उठाकर
मुझे जवाब न देकर
मुझसे दूर रहकर
तुम्हें सुकून मिले

हो सकता है
मुझे भुलाकर
मेरी यादों को छितराकर
तुम अपने काम पर
ध्यान लगा पाओ

तुम्हें लगता होगा
की मैं और मेरी परछाई
या फिर उसकी याद
तुम्हें रोकती होगी
आगे बढ़ने से

पर कभी कभी
सांस भी तो फूलती है
शरीर भी थकता है
आँखें भी थकती हैं
ये सब रोकते हैं
आगे बढ़ने से हमें

पर क्या छोड़ पाते हैं
इन सब को हम

मैं भी वही सांस हूँ
तुम में बसी
मुझसे भाग न पाओगे
मेरे भाई,
तुम्हारा हिस्सा हूँ मैं

कहीं भी जाओ
कहीं भी बढ़ो
मैं तो साथ ही हूँ
मत भागो मुझसे दूर
तुम्हारा सुधीर

A video of lecture by Mathew Flinders

An interesting video in defence of politics. Must watch




http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b015n05j

एक अध्यापक 

मैं एक अध्यापक हूँ 

बच्चों को पढाता हूँ 

सपनों को बुनना सिखाता हूँ 

कभी-कभी तो लगता है 

समाज भी बदल डालूं 

सब मुझे कहते हैं 'मास्टर'

मेरा पर्यायवाची है ये 

कभी पारिश्रमिक के लिए झगड़ता 

कभी वाटर केनन को झेलता 

मास्टर हूँ मैं 

चुनाव करवाता, तो कभी 

भेड़ बकरियां गिनता 

पोलियो की बूंदें पिलाता 

कभी नोकरी के लिए

लखनऊ-जयपुर की सडको पर 

अफसरों के चक्कर काटता 

ज्ञान उपार्जन करता 

नया समाज बनाता 

एक अन्धेर् ग्रस्त समाज को 

माफ़ करना दोस्तों 

अध्यापक नहीं 

मास्टर ही हूँ मै।  

सुधीर 

मेरा पुरुषत्व 

मैंने दिखाया तो अपना पुरुषत्व ,

उसके साथ  चलकर, 

अब उसकी बारी है ,

मेरे साहस के बदले ,

अपने उस आत्मसम्मान को

कम करने की ,

जो उसमें पहले बसता था 

ताकि वो मेरे परिवार में 

अपनाई जा सके 

मैंने दिखाया तो मर्दानगी 

उसके लिए तनिष्क का 

महंगा कंगन खरीदकर 

अब उसकी बारी है 

अपने उस विवेकशील 

संघर्षशील मस्तिष्क को 

एक तरफ रख देने की 

ताकि मैं उस समाज में 

अपनी मान्यता पा सकूँ 

जाकर बता सकूँ

देखा मेरा पुरुषत्व। 

 

 

सुधीर 

न्याय की खोज 

न्याय की खोज अब पूरी हो चुकी 

रोजाना दिए जाने वाले दिलासों में 

महिलाओं को दिए गए आश्वाशन 

दलितों को दिए जा चुके आरक्षण 

पिछड़ों को भेंट किये गए प्रतिनिधित्व 

अल्पसंख्यकों को दिए गए संवैधानिक प्रावधान 

यूरोप में विकसित न्याय के सिधांत 

भारत में कॉलेजों में दिए व्याख्यान 

नेताओं की रैली में ऊँची आवाज में आव्हान 

क्या अब भी बाकि है कुछ देने को 

न्याय इसी को तो   कहते हैं 

दे तो दिया न्याय, अब और क्या दें 

सुनो, अब पूरी हो चुकी न्याय की खोज. 

एक कवि

किसे कहते हैं एक कवि
कौन होता है एक कलाकार
क्या होती है इनकी पहचान
क्या ये जन्म से ही ऐसे होते हैं
या फिर कर्म बनता है इन्हें
मैं क्या हूँ , शायद कोशिश
कर रहा हूँ कुछ
बनने की इनमे से , पर पता नहीं
क्यों एक डर है मन में
चुप हो कर, छिप कर
लिखना  चाहता हूँ मैं
मेरी जगह ही क्या है इस नयी
दौड़ती भागती तरक्की करती
रंगीन दुनिया में कौन पढ़ेगा
बेरंग, बिना स्याही की बातें
वही तो होता है एक कलाकार
काश मैं भी  ऐसा होता काश

वो राजनीती जिसे मैं पढता हूँ

मैं जो पढता हूँ वो राजनीती है
राजनीती है ये, राज करने की नीति
इसमें एक राजा होता है
और बाकि सब राज करने हेतु
और कोई नहीं होता, लोग नहीं होते। 
पर अचरज है मुझे, मैं जिन लोगों को देखता हूँ
उनमें भी, बिन राजनीति जाने
एक सोच होती है , मानवता होती है
और साथ ही होती है ,
दुनिया को देखने की एक नज़र
वो नजर जो दुनिया से आगे हो
जिसमे न्याय है, और स्वतंत्रता भी
जिसमे हक़ है और समरसता भी
जिसमे शोषण है पर मिलनसारिता भी
जिसमे युद्ध है और शांति भी.   
पर मैं जो लोकतंत्र पढता हूँ
वो तो कुछ और है , उसमे लोग है,
पर लड़ते हुए
अपने हक़ के लिए, न्याय के लिए
शांति के लिए, समानता के लिए
सब लड़ते हुए, एकदम व्यस्त
बात करने और रुकने की फुर्सत नहीं
मैं सोचता हूँ, क्या पढता हूँ मैं
एक सच या फिर एक झूठ
या फिर कुछ कहीं दोनों के बीच। 
कहीं मेरे ये शब्द - राजनीती और लोकतंत्र
गलत तो नहीं ,
कहीं कुछ और तो नहीं बसता
जहाँ न राज करने की नीति हो
न ही लोकतंत्र के संघर्ष
पर फिर भी लोग हो
बातें हो , बाँटना हो, साथ रहना हो
झगडे हों, पर शांति भी हो
मोहब्बत भी हो संगीत भी
मैं कहीं कुछ गलत तो
नहीं पढ़ रहा हुँ.

Lessons from Iraq for Global Political Theory

Events in Iraq after the withdrawal of the NATO forces are being seen as an outcome of the US led global drive for democratization. How political theory in general and theories of global politics in particular should respond to this crisis is a major question. If analyzed within the framework of political theory and the global discourse on democratization, governance and state building, the Iraq crisis can provide many lessons. It can challenge some of the globally accepted notions since the Washington Consensus. For example, the international community has largely accepted the Western type liberal democracy as the best form of political system and market and global trade driven economies are projected as the best economic systems. Amongst these, state is being seen as a supportive institution required to protect liberal democracy and ensure a smooth functioning of the market. Here I am trying to explain the Iraq affair from the perspective of the debate between the democracy and governance, their interlinkages and their impact on global politics.

The debate of democracy versus good governance has engulfed political scientists since the World War I. Supporters of democracy argue that democracy is desirable in itself since it, a. empowers citizens in a political sense by guaranteeing political equality, b. allows them to express themselves without fear of silence from the state and c. gives freedom to choose those who will control the governance process through regular, free and fair, periodical elections. State in a democratic set up is expected to play the role of a welfare institution, working with an objective of promoting welfare of the people while being within its limits determined by the constitution and its values. 

Those who preferred governance, defined in terms of human development in contemporary political theory, over liberal democracy opposed such a democracy calling it an empty notion of empowerment. Political equality is meaningless between those who are economically unequal. This idea of governance was focused in the Marxist notion of democracy and state. In the countries governed by the principles of Marxism, economic well being was given a preference over political equality and openness. It is pertinent to mention here that the idea of development in the Socialist countries was largely focusing on better health care, education, food, shelter and employment, which later became a predominant agenda in the human development theories and global development discourse. Two major differences were: a. in the socialist pattern of economy state was to be a major economic player unlike capitalist economies where market was given primary role and b. political issues were given priority over economic agenda. However, after the Cold War it has been realized that even both these differences were not based on certain facts. For example, even in the capitalist societies state was a major player. Promotion of market as a major player was more of an agenda for global politics and not for the domestic polity. Similarly, during crisis times the issue of civil liberties and individual freedom, which is a hallmark of liberal democracy was given a back seat and state emerged as a police state with all instruments required for curtailing individual freedoms and liberties. In other words, both these differences were more of principles differences rather than of substance. The plight of this debate after the end of Cold War and after 9/11, to be more specific, has been more to accept some of these realities rather than simple having dual notions of domestic and global polity. However, the world has yet not been able to overcome this dilemma.

During the entire period of Cold War this debate between democracy and governance continued. The liberal notion of democracy was criticized for ignoring human development whereas Marxist notion of development was criticized for authoritarian political systems. During the Cold War, these debates were part of the US and Western Europe controlled development agencies and their programs for distribution of aid to the third world countries. Politically, the US led NATO alliance accommodated authoritarian regimes within its idea of international system, as the primary concern was their national interest or geo-strategic interests rather than following any particular political system or type of institutions. This was well articulated in the realist school of thought in international relations.  

By the end of the Cold War two noteworthy developments took place. First such development was the recognition of the idea of democracy got recognition in the global politics discourse after the collapse of the former Soviet Union due to its internal political and economic problems and its inability to manage reform programs. Another such development was emergence of the idea of governance/'good governance brought the issue of priorities of state policies at the forefront in global politics. Initially, the idea of governance only focused on rule of law, market friendly conditions and constitutionalism.

However, gradually both the ideas, governance and democracy were seen as closely linked, and named as 'democratic governance'. Notion of rights based development was seen as a connecting link between the two. It was argued that the democratic political system guarantees protection of individual rights and provides constitutional and institutional safeguards for this purpose. The 'rights based development' depends upon such a political system. The notion of democratic governance came up in the view of bringing these two concepts together. 

Apart from these complexities, in political theory what remained ambiguous, and continues to remain contested, is what comes first: good governance or democracy. Another question which remains unanswered is: whether good governance is a prerequisite for democracy or democracy is required for good governance. There are scholars who argue that both these concepts are not causally linked to each other. Rather, both can take place simultaneously, independent of each other, or non of them may occur at all. Answer to these questions is context specific and neither political scientists nor development economists have a theory driven answer to these questions. 

However, in the aftermath of Cold War, the US administration found the idea of democracy as a useful tool to carry forward its agenda of global hegemony while ensuring its economic supremacy and geo-strategic control of the world. Hence, unlike its Cold War ideological position when it had no objection in developing bilateral or multilateral cooperation with the countries governed by authoritarian regimes, its international policy started being determined by the nature of political system a country had. During Cold War a major justification behind cooperation with the authoritarian regimes was their ability to achieve good governance which was seen as a prerequisite for development of market friendly conditions. However, after Cold War the ideological position shifted under the influence of liberal institutionalists and US administration started giving preference democracy over governance. The ideological commitment of the US became so dominating over its calculation of national interests that for promotion of the idea of democracy it even started intervening militarily or by using soft power in the name of civil society promotion in the countries which had authoritarian regimes. The reality was that the former US allies in the West Asia which had authoritarian regimes became possible challengers to the US supremacy or hegemony in world affairs, especially its economic and geo-strategic superiority since the new world order came out to be a multi-polar world than a US controlled uni-polar world order, as projected by the realist scholars of international politics. 

Hence, in order to protect its 'national interests' the US started replacing the existing regimes of these countries, which were governed, in the sense of political theory by authoritarian regimes. However, if we look at the contemporary West Asia, it is clear that these countries were better governed during the 'authoritarian regimes' as compared to what they are today e.g. Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. One major reason was that the authoritarian regimes did take into account local social realities and developed the principles of governance by implanting their own localized notions of institution building, elections, multicultural society, constitutionalism and so on. This is not to argue that these regimes didn't have problems or they were being governed by right methods. The point which I am trying to highlight is that there is hardly any attempt by political theorists to analyze how these regimes did manage a balance between the notions of political modernity and tradition which led to their success in achieving better governance.

The case of Iraq is an interesting development within this discourse. It has been highlighted time and again that Iraq was a better governed state in the previous regime than what it is today. Even in protection of minorities, its performance was better than the post-invasion Iraqi government. Today's Iraq is a complete mess and nothing but a state in chaos. What this case makes clear is that institutions of governance and democracy are largely determined by local context. Imposing any particular kind of institutions might aggravate the problem of democracy building rather than solving it. Global community in general and political theorists in particular, has to learn how to encourage different countries to promote values of democracy and governance while maintaining their unique culture, identity and values. In other words, the theories has to learn how to reflect the differences instead of teaching different countries to change themselves as per the emerging or imposed realities of liberal political theory. If this would not happen, the world will witness emergence of many more Iraqs in the coming decades.

Mission Higher Education: The Saga Unfinished

This is the third month of our team's rigorous hard work. We are working to streamline the internal assessment method, the grading system and semester system as per the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission (UGC) and the University Grants Commission (UGC). In order to make Indian universities 'world class institutions' the two major institutions have recommended large scale reforms in the higher education system continuing for the last forty years. Implementation of the grading system and semester system were two such changes. Keeping its commitment working as per the guidelines of the UGC, our university also took this initiative.
It is necessary to look at the background of our university. The university was following a mixed evaluation system as well as a semester cum yearly evaluation method. The system proved highly expensive as well as inefficient. The system was neither taking care of the students' needs nor it was making it a feasible system for the university faculty. In fact, the faculties were not involved in any effective sense. To make the system more student friendly and ensuring full faculty participation in the evaluation system, the university introduced the grading system. At present all successful educational institutions like the IITs, IIMs, JNU, CUH etc are following a fully internal assessment based grading system. 
However, the change has not been a smooth affair. A quick switch over from a conventional system to a new system brought the faculty unrest. In addition to this there was no clarity of philosophy behind how the system has evolved. What are the basics of the internal evaluation, which was suspected to bring more the element of subjectivity, as compare to the external evaluation advocated on the logic of objectivity. What made the whole process really troublesome was unavailability of any document related to this system. Moreover, there are no guidelines related to the relative evaluation, a right mix of subjectivity and objectivity which are the basics of the grading system, internal and continuous evaluation system.
The institutions like IITs and IIMs can do it since they have required infrastructure, technical skills as well as the expertise. However in case of universities which do not have the wherewithal cannot do that. We are trying and have achieved some success but yet there is a long way to go. I would strongly say that before making such recommendations the agencies should also do some research on the realities of the existing system. This will be helpful in smoother implementation of the recommendations.

The traditional lake of Sagar is without any water in it.

We the Political Scientists

Politics and its experts, who explain it in a more scientific manner , known as Political Scientist do share a wider responsibility towards the society. We have developed a large number of courses, curriculms, and have also contributed number of research papers, books and so on. These contributions have shown their implications as well. Politics has changed. Its methods, techniques have undergone radical changes in the last fifty years. This gives us, the political scientists, a real satisfaction. Perhaps, we can sleep properly as we have done our due.
But is this the case? Have we really contributed? Some of these questions were raised by the well known political science figure David Easton, when he questioned the relevance of the behavioural revolution in the discipline. He questioned the feasibility and relevance of natural science type research in Political Science. He said that the political scientists were so busy with the quantitative mthods that they did not realize the emerging tendency of moving away from the social realities.
Same can be said about political scientists today as well, I believe. Of course not all can be placed in this generalization but a majority comes under this category. While preparing our class notes, teaching material and teaching the political theories- manufactured, tested and verified in the west, we have forgotten that there is a tough world outside the realm of formal political science. Most of the theories (and not all) are away from the problems which a common citizen faces due to the politics of the country. In other words, we are busy with explaiing these tendencies but have failed to bring a substantial change.
The whole policy making and implementation paraphernalia is engaged in a serious nexus with the politicians and big business houses. This nexus has pulled small emterpreneurs and other salaried classes in this nexus as well. As a result, we all are in the process of being a part of that nexus -willingly or unwillingly. The nexus has all the powers to manouver the eixsting notions of philosophy, science, history and others that we have almost forgotten how to think for alternative paradigms. We see people dying everyday, not as a routine process of life and death but due to systemic failures, social atrocities, and other structures to carry out violence, but we have accomodated ourselves. 
It is sad to write but it seems that we the political scientists have also started believing in - politics is a bad person's business. But staying away from this will not make us good.  There is a need to stand in defense of politics. Politics which is characterized by deliberation, tolrenace, freedom and justice and not by violance, suppression, inequality and hierarchy.

Caste oppression or discrimination continues across the country in various forms. If I am trying to speak against it, am I mistaken? Yet I have no answer

The Orientation Course

The Feberuary month I spent on the hills of Aravali in Delhi. It was the occassion of an Orientation course at the Academic Staff College, JNU. When I was leaving Lucknow, many thoghts and plans were flonting in my mind, which I drafted in the last one month. I was really excited that I will work for my research and manuscript on Russia. But after one month, I feel I did something else, that is the assessment of the Orientation course.

The UGC guidelines on orientation course defines its objective as: to make the teachers self reliant and familiarize them with the problems of Indian society, economy and so on. I could not understand what does 'self reliance' mean. It gives an impression as if a teacher in the college or university is a parasite who should be taught how to learn on its own.

Secondly, I found it rigid in its second objective. The purpose of a teacher is (or ought to be) to obtain knowledge and to communicate it to the masses in the most effective manner. Understanding problems of any particular society is a part of this exercise. In other words, the process of knowledge is not confined to any country or society. Rather it is universal in nature. The UGC guideline is very much against it.

Though the JNU model of orientation course was somewhat different and interesting (but boring at times as well). The emphasis was to tell the teachers what the education system is and what are the serious challenges before the humankind. However, somehow I found it very vague and haphazard. Of course, it depends on the person who is coming to deliver the lecture as well, yet there can be few points on which the ASC can work upon.

Firstly, it would have been better if the first lecture would have been on the philosophy of knowledge. It would have generated some interest for research in the newly appointed faculties who otherwise have lost interest in reseach and innovation. Web designing was a good idea but it should be modernized. For instance, various softwares in google. blogging, social networking etc. Besides, three or four major fields should be decided in advance, keeping in view the composition of participants. Above all, I would strongly argue that UGC (or whichever new body comes in) should be informed about the problems with the philosophy of the orientation programme. The orientation programme can be a better training exercise for the teachers. I would congratulate JNU ASC for its wonderful endevor.

In Search

I am searching
A change
A revolution
A new world
Peacfeul and beautiful
But I am told
Revolution begins at home
Because every home is
A small world
Beautiful and Peaceful
I am searching
A home different from my ideas
So that I can start the revolution
I am still searching