Unanswered Q
Death can never be cause for rejoicing: it can, however, bring relief, even closure. Strong undercurrents of relief ~ the likely epicentre being 10 Janpath ~ would be running through Congress circles in the hope that the passing of controversial Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi would bring closure to the devastating kickbacks in the Bofors gun deal. Little has so haunted this nation as the scandal that brought down the government with the most massive majority in Parliament; and as long as there was a possibility of ‘Q’ someday being coerced into destroying the sinisterly-laid smokescreen there were fears that the needle of suspicion would be driven home. Mr Manmohan Singh was mere clutter on the governmental radar screen when the controversy raged, yet in 2009 he chose to revive memories of the old HMV records label (no allusion to Narendra Modi&’s puppy remark) by declaring that the Q case “is an embarrassment for India, it is not a good reflection on the Indian legal system that we harass people while the world says we have no case”. Sure it is an embarrassment and poor reflection ~ of how the criminal justice system can be treacherously perverted to protect people in high places. As for “the world” he mentioned, was he referring to Malaysia and Argentina, where the incompetence or subversion of Indian investigative agencies ensured Q&’s release by undermining an Interpol alert? As for the unfreezing of accounts in a British bank, the action was initiated by an Indian request. More recently, another Mr Clean, AK Antony, bent over backwards in Parliament to contend that there no case to pursue.
There was no case, but only because from the very outset every  instrument of the state was shamelessly abused by a concert of the Congress party to ensure that the truth never emerged. In money terms, the kickbacks would appear trivial when compared with what has been “creamed” in the 2G Spectrum and coal lock scams. So why does Bofors still trigger shock and awe? Essentially because it took bastardisation of power to a low from which there has been no recovery: Indira Gandhi&’s Emergency was propelled by a lust for political power, Bofors represented lust for even worse. Just consider all that was compromised: Parliament courtesy a fraudulent JPC; the CBI functioned like the caged parrot their Lordships recently dubbed it; the lower judiciary disgraced  itself; a respected minister like Arun Singh retreated from the  political arena; a “political elder” reduced himself to a courier etc.
All this while Q hogged contracts, treated officials like serfs,  walked unchecked through Customs at Delhi airport, and finally moved to other climes… He was close to people in power, and power corrupts. Bofors has had more than its immediate political impact. It   set the stage for so many of debilitating evils that now plague the nation. That is why, regardless of the unanswered Q question, it would be criminal for India to forget…
Fanciful Presidency
Whatever transpires at Monday&’s meeting of Amartya Sen with the Mentor Group, fanciful ideas are inherently exciting. So indeed it is with Presidency University&’s move to induct foreign faculty; re-fashion the teaching of history by doing away with the chronological approach; and introduce the emotive subject of “Love” as a full-fledged paper on General Education (GenEd), a compulsory subsidiary subject. Far from consolidating the gains it may have achieved over the past three years, the fledgling university appears to be contending with a turmoil of ideas. The move to appoint foreign faculty doesn’t appear to be quite feasible when contextualised with no fewer than eight faculty resignations and one dismissal. Small wonder that three academics from Wales, Bangladesh and Cameron have declined the offers as has a young NRI historian in Cambridge, who was approached to fill Benjamin Zachariah&’s vacancy. Though Amartya Sen may yet be able to convince his long-time friend, Manmohan Singh, to relax the rules, the Mentor Group is seemingly impervious to government regulations. Specifically, there is no such scheme in the UGC rules of engagement. No less crucially, there is no system of work visas for foreigners.
The move to do away with the chronological study of history may seem fashionable on the face of it, but it cannot inspire optimism. Not the least because it would be thoroughly unscientific to adopt the thematic model at the under-graduate level. Chronology is the bedrock of history. Trends in social, economic, cultural history and the finer points of political history may be appealing, but this thematic approach is best pursued at the post-graduate level. It ought not to be inflicted on 17/18-year-olds, straight out of schools where the standard of history teaching is not uniform, if not inadequate.
The third issue. “Love” blossoms or it doesn’t. It can be a topic in General Education at best; a full-fledged paper at worst. The Sociology department is reported to have recommended the second option, indeed to teach the evolution of “Love” from the era of the Bhakti cult to contemporary Bollywood. And the authorities, as reported in this newspaper, are perfectly agreeable. Not to put too fine a point on it, it will be a fashionable semi-literate pursuit in the manner of film studies. All three issues are contentious, and the authorities must reflect. It has been a rocky transition from college to university. And on closer reflection, conversion of Presidency to an autonomous college, rather than a university, would have been a less complicated option.