കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാല - 1952-62 കാലഘട്ടം

അര നൂറ്റാണ്ടു മുമ്പ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഈ ലേഖനം അന്ന് കേരളത്തിൽ വ്യാപകമായി   ചർച്ച ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നു                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയും          ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഗവേഷണവും

ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ഇരുപത്തഞ്ചു  സർവകലാശാലകളിൽ വെച്ച് ഏറ്റവും മോശപ്പെട്ടതാണ്            കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ ഗവേഷണ നിലവാരം

ബി.ആർ.പി. ഭാസ്കർ

സാക്ഷരതയിൽ ഇതരസംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ മുന്നിലാണല്ലോ കേരളത്തിന്റെ സ്ഥാനം. ഇതു തീർച്ചയായും അഭിമാനാർഹം തന്നെ. പക്ഷെ ഈ അഭിമാനബോധം ന്യായീകരിക്കാൻ കഴിയാത്ത പല തെറ്റിദ്ധാരണകളും നമ്മിൽ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.

അതിലൊന്നാണ് മറ്റ് സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലെ ജനങ്ങളേക്കാളും ബുദ്ധിമാന്മാരാണ് കേരളീയർ എന്നത്. വസ്തുനിഷ്ഠമായി ചിന്തിച്ചാൽ ഈ ധാരണയെ പിന്താങ്ങുവാൻ തെളിവുകളൊന്നുമില്ല.

ഇത്തരത്തിൽ പെടുന്ന മറ്റൊരു തെറ്റിദ്ധാരണയാണ് മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകളിലെ ബിരുദധാരികളേക്കാൾ കേമന്മാരാണു കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ ബിരുദധാരികൾ എന്നത്. സാമീപ്യവും നിഷേധിക്കാനാവാത്ത പഴമയും നിമിത്തം മദിരാശി സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ മേന്മ വക വെച്ചു കൊടുക്കാൻ ചിലർ സന്നദ്ധരാണ്.  പക്ഷെ മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകളുടെ നിലവാരം അംഗീകരിക്കാൻ നമുക്ക് പൊതുവെ വൈമനസ്യമാണ്.

നമ്മുടെ ധാരണകൾക്ക് നിരക്കാത്ത വസ്തുതകൾ കാണുമ്പോൾ അഭിപ്രായം തദനുസരണം ഭേദപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനു പകരം യാഥാർത്ഥ്യത്തിന്റെ മേൽ കരി തേയ്ക്കുവാനാണ് നാം ശ്രമിക്കുന്നത്. അങ്ങനെ അഖിലേന്ത്യാ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലെ മത്സരപ്പരീക്ഷകളിൽ മറ്റ് സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നുള്ള സ്ഥാനാർത്ഥികൾ നമ്മുടെ ബിരുദധാരികളേക്കാൾ പ്രശസ്തമായി വിജയിക്കുമ്പോൾ നമ്മുടെ തെറ്റിദ്ധാരണ കൈവെടിയാൻ നാം തയ്യാറല്ല. നേരേ മറിച്ച് അത് വടക്കേ ഇന്ത്യാക്കാരായ പരീക്ഷകരുടെ പക്ഷപാതപരമായ നയം കൊണ്ടാണെന്ന് നാം സമാധാനിക്കുന്നു.

എന്താണ് യാഥാർത്ഥ്യം? പരീക്ഷകരെല്ലാം നിഷ്പക്ഷമതികളല്ലായിരിക്കാം. എങ്കിലും ഇന്ന് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ പല സർവ്വകലാശാലകളും കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയേക്കാൾ ഉന്നതമായ നിലവാരമാണ് പുലർത്തുന്നത്.

രണ്ട് സർവ്വകലാശാലകളുടെ നിലവാരം താരതമ്യപ്പെടുത്തുക എളുപ്പമല്ല. എന്തെന്നാൽ അദ്ധ്യയനനിലവാരം അളക്കുവാൻ പോരുന്ന മാനദണ്ഡം നിർണ്ണയിക്കാൻ വിഷമമുണ്ട്. എങ്കിലും ചില പ്രത്യേകതുറകളിൽ രണ്ട് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങൾ എങ്ങനെ പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് നോക്കുവാനും അവയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനഫലങ്ങൾ തുലനം ചെയ്യുവാനും സാദ്ധ്യമാണ്.

ശാസ്ത്രീയവിദ്യാഭ്യാസത്തിന്റെ പ്രാധാന്യം കണക്കാക്കുമ്പോൾ ഒരു സർവ്വകലാശാല ഈ കാര്യത്തിൽ എത്രമാത്രം താല്പര്യം കാണിക്കുന്നുവെന്നത് അതിന്റെ പുരോഗമനോന്മുഖതയുടേയും കാര്യക്ഷമതയുടേയും ഒരു സൂചികയായി കരുതാവുന്നതാണ്. വേറെയും പല മാനദണ്ഡങ്ങളും സ്വീകരിക്കാമെങ്കിലും, ഇന്നത്തെ പരിത:സ്ഥിതിയിൽ ശാസ്ത്രീയഗവേഷണത്തിൽ സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ പ്രദർശിപ്പിക്കുന്ന താല്പര്യം അവയുടെ നിലവാരത്തെ തുലനം ചെയ്യുവാനുപകരിക്കുന്ന  പ്രമുഖഘടകങ്ങളിലൊന്നായി കണക്കാക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.

ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനം ഇതര സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളുടേതുമായി താരതമ്യപ്പെടുത്തുകയാണ് ഈ ലേഖനത്തിന്റെ ഉദ്ദേശം. ഇതിനുതകുന്ന വിവരങ്ങൾ കൌൺസിൽ ഓഫ് സയന്റിഫിക് ആൻഡ് ഇൻഡസ്ട്രിയൽ റിസർച്ച് (സി.എസ്.ഐ.ആർ) ഈയിടെ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച ഒരു സർവ്വേ റിപ്പോർട്ടിൽ കാണാനുണ്ട്. സി.എസ്.ഐ.ആറിന്റെ  സർവ്വേ ആൻഡ് പ്ലാനിംഗ് യൂണിറ്റ് തയ്യാറാക്കിയ ഈ റിപ്പോർട്ട് വിവിധ സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ നൽകിയ സ്ഥിതിവിവരക്കണക്കുകളുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ എഴുതപ്പെട്ടതാണ്.

ഈ റിപ്പോർട്ടനുസരിച്ച് 1952 മുതൽ 1962 വരെയുള്ള പത്തു വർഷങ്ങളിൽ; കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാല കേവലം 157 ഗവേഷണപ്രബന്ധങ്ങൾ മാത്രമാണ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്. വിവിധ വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ സ്പെഷ്യലൈസ് ചെയ്യുന്ന മാസികകളിലും ഇന്ത്യൻ സയൻസ് കോൺഗ്രസ് സമ്മേളനങ്ങളോടനുബന്ധിച്ചുള്ള പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങളിലും ചേർത്തിട്ടുള്ള ലേഖനങ്ങൾ ഇവയിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്നു. ആഗ്രിക്കൾച്ചർ, ബോട്ടണി, കെമിസ്ട്രി, എൻജിനീയറിംഗ്, ജിയോളജി, മാത്തമാറ്റിക്സ്, മെഡിസിൻ, ഫാർമസി, ഫിസിക്സ്, സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സ്, വെറ്റെറിനറി സയൻസ്, സുവോളജി എന്നീ പന്ത്രണ്ട് വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ നടന്ന ഗവേഷണങ്ങൾ ഈ പഠനത്തിലുൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.

ഈ ദശവർഷക്കാലത്ത് മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ കണക്ക് നോക്കുക. ആന്ധ്ര 1805, ദെൽഹി 1070, അലാഹാബാദ് 747, മദിരാശി 631, ബോംബേ 524, അണ്ണാമല 501, പൂന 372, ഉസ്മാനിയ 245.

ചില സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ പത്തു വർഷത്തെയും കണക്കുകൾ നൽകിയിട്ടില്ല. എങ്കിലും കൊടുത്ത കണക്കുകളിൽ നിന്നും അവയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനവും നമ്മുടേതിനേക്കാൾ മെച്ചമാണെന്ന് കാണാം.

ഒൻപത് വർഷങ്ങളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ ലേഖനങ്ങളുടെ കണക്ക് ഇപ്രകാരമാണ്: ലഖ്നൌ 1459, നാഗപ്പൂർ 463, ഉത്ക്കൽ 458, ബറോഡ 375.

മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ നൽകിയ കണക്കുകൾ താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു. ആലിഗഢ് (5 വർഷത്തിൽ) 80, ബനാറസ് (5 വർഷത്തിൽ) 597, കൽക്കത്ത (7 വർഷത്തിൽ) 1092, ജാദവ്പൂർ (6 വർഷത്തിൽ) 426, മൈസൂർ (8 വർഷത്തിൽ) 121, പഞ്ചാബ് (ഒരു വർഷത്തിൽ) 155, പാട്ന (2 വർഷത്തിൽ) 137, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര (6 വർഷത്തിൽ) 271.

കേരളത്തേക്കാൾ മോശപ്പെട്ടവരില്ലെന്നല്ല. ഒൻപത് വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 108 പ്രബന്ധങ്ങൾ പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ കർണ്ണാടകവും ആറു വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 74 എണ്ണം പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ ഗൌഹാട്ടിയും അഞ്ചു വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 44 എണ്ണം പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ സാഗറും നാലു വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 16 എണ്ണം പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ ജബൽ‌പൂരും നമ്മുടെ പിന്നിലാണ്.

ഗുണമോ?

ഈ താരതമ്യപഠനം കേവലം എണ്ണത്തെ അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കിയുള്ളതാണല്ലോ. ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഗവേഷണത്തെ പരീക്ഷണങ്ങളെ എണ്ണത്തിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ വിലയിരുത്തുന്നതു ശരിയാണോ എന്ന് ചിലർ സംശയിച്ചേക്കാം. എണ്ണത്തിൽ കുറവാണെങ്കിലും പരീക്ഷണങ്ങൾ ഗുണത്തിൽ മെച്ചപ്പെട്ടവയാണോ എന്നല്ലേ നോക്കേണ്ടത്? ശരിയാണ്. പക്ഷെ അത്തരത്തിലുള്ള പഠനം ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞന്മാർക്കു പോലും എളുപ്പമല്ല.

വാസ്തവത്തിൽ സംഖ്യാധിഷ്ഠിതമായ പഠനം ശാസ്ത്രരീത്യാ ന്യായീകരിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. എന്തെന്നാൽ ഗവേഷണപ്രവർത്തനം കൂടുതലുള്ള സർവ്വകലാശാലകളിലാണ് ഗുണത്തിൽ മെച്ചപ്പെട്ട പരീക്ഷണങ്ങളുണ്ടാകാൻ സാദ്ധ്യത. മാത്രമല്ല, പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധമാണല്ലോ ഇവിടെ കണക്കാക്കുന്നത്. പരീക്ഷണങ്ങൾക്കു എന്തെങ്കിലും മേന്മയുണ്ടെങ്കിലേ അവയെ ആസ്പദമാക്കി രചിക്കപ്പെട്ട ലേഖനങ്ങൾ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെടാനിടയുള്ളു. അതുകൊണ്ട് എണ്ണത്തിൽ കുറവാണെങ്കിലും നമ്മുടെ ഗവേഷണപ്രബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ നിലവാരം മെച്ചമാണെന്ന് സമാശ്വസിക്കാൻ നിർവ്വാഹമില്ല.

അതാതു സവ്വകലാശാലകളുടെ തന്നെ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങളിൽ വന്ന ലേഖനങ്ങൾ ഈ കണക്കിൽ പെടുന്നില്ല. ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്കകത്തും പുറത്തുമുള്ള പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങളിൽ ചേർക്കപ്പെട്ടതോ ഇന്ത്യൻ സയൻസ് കോൺഗ്രസ് സമ്മേളനത്തിൽ വായിക്കപ്പെട്ടതോ ആയ ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങളേ കണക്കിലെടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളു.

വിദേശങ്ങളിൽ

വിദേശീയ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങൾ സ്വീകരിച്ച ലേഖനങ്ങളുടെ എണ്ണം ഗവേഷണ നിലവാരത്തിന്റെ ഒരു സൂചികയായി കണക്കാക്കുന്നതിൽ തെറ്റില്ല. എന്തെന്നാൽ പ്രത്യേകമായ എന്തെങ്കിലും മേന്മയുള്ള ഗവേഷണങ്ങളെ ആസ്പദമാക്കിയുള്ള ലേഖനങ്ങൾ മാത്രമേ അവയുടെ ചുമതല വഹിക്കുന്ന വിദഗ്ദ്ധന്മാർ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കുകയുള്ളൂ.

കേരളത്തിലെ ഗവേഷകന്മാരെഴുതിയ 157 ലേഖനങ്ങളിൽ 19 എണ്ണം മാത്രമാണ് വിദേശത്ത് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടത്. മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകളുടെ ഗവേഷണത്തിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ വെളിനാടുകളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടവയുടെ കണക്കുകൾ താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു. ദെൽഹി 437, അലാഹാബാദ് 391, ആന്ധ്ര 373, ലഖ്നൌ 372, കൽക്കത്ത 326, മദിരാശി 256, ജാദവ്പൂർ 213, ബോംബെ 166, അണ്ണാമല 159, ബറോഡ 152, ബനാറസ് 137, ഉസ്മാനിയ 106, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 100, പൂന 95, നാഗപ്പൂർ 93, ഉത്ക്കൽ 62, പഞ്ചാബ് 62, ആലിഗഢ് 50, മൈസൂർ 45, കർണ്ണാടക 36, ഗൌഹാട്ടി 30.

എണ്ണത്തിൽ കേരളത്തേക്കാൽ മെച്ചമല്ലാത്തവ പാട്ന (19), സാഗർ (6), ജബൽ‌പൂർ (3) എന്നീ സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ മാത്രമാണ്. പാട്ന കേവലം രണ്ട് വർഷങ്ങളിൽ 137 ഗവേഷണ പത്രങ്ങളുണ്ടാക്കിയെന്നുള്ളത് പ്രത്യേകം ഓർക്കണം. അവയിൽ 19 എണ്ണമാണ് വിദേശരാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിയ്ക്കപ്പെട്ടത്. അതുകൊണ്ട് അതിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനം കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടേതിനേക്കാൾ പ്രശസ്തമാണെന്ന് കരുതണം.

സാഗറും ജബൽ‌പൂറും കേരളത്തോളം പോലും ഗവേഷണപ്രവർത്തനമില്ലാത്ത സർവ്വകലാശാലകളാണ്. എങ്കിലും നമ്മുടെ ഗവേഷകരെഴുതുന്ന ലേഖനങ്ങളിൽ 12.10 ശതമാനം മാത്രം വിദേശത്ത് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിയ്ക്കപ്പെടുമ്പോൾ അവിടെയുള്ളവരെഴുതുന്നതിൽ യഥാക്രമം 13.64ഉം 18.76ഉം ശതമാനം വിദേശീയവിദഗ്ദ്ധന്മാരാൽ അംഗീകരിയ്ക്കപ്പെടുന്നു.

ചുരുക്കിപ്പറഞ്ഞാൽ നമ്മുടെ ഗവേഷണനിലവാരം സി.എസ്.ഐ.ആറിന്റെ സർവ്വേയിൽ പെടുന്ന 25 സർവ്വകലാശാലകളിൽ ഏറ്റവും മോശപ്പെട്ടതാണ്. ഇതാണ് വിദ്യാസമ്പന്നരും ശാസ്ത്രീയബോധവുള്ളവരും ബുദ്ധിമാന്മാരുമെന്ന് അഹങ്കരിക്കുന്ന കേരളീയരുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ സ്ഥിതി!

മെഡിസിൻ

പന്ത്രണ്ട് വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ നടന്ന ഗവേഷണങ്ങൾ ഈ പഠനത്തിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്നുവെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞുവല്ലൊ. സ്വാഭാവികമായും ഒരു സർവ്വകലാശാല എല്ലാ വിഷയങ്ങളിലും തുല്യമായ താല്പര്യം പ്രകടിപ്പിക്കുന്നില്ല. കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയിൽ ഏറ്റവുമധികം ഗവേഷണം നടക്കുന്നത്, ആശ്ചര്യമെന്നു പറയട്ടെ, മെഡിസിനിലാണ്. മെഡിസിൻ വകുപ്പ് താരതമ്യേന പുതിയതാണ് എന്നതാണ് ആശ്ചര്യത്തിന് കാരണം. മെഡിസിനിൽ 45 ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങളാണ് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടത്. കൂടുതൽ പഴക്കമുള്ള വകുപ്പുകളുടെ കണക്കുകൾ നോക്കുക. ബോട്ടണി 33, കെമിസ്ട്രി 21, സുവോളഗി 20, ഫിസിക്സ് 14, സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സ് 4, എൻ‌ജിനീയറിംഗ് 0, മാത്തമാറ്റിക്സ് 0.

(നമ്മുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങളിൽ മാത്രം ചേർക്കപ്പെട്ട ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങൾ ഇതിലുൾപ്പെടുന്നില്ല. അവയുടെ എണ്ണം താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു: മെഡിസിൻ 10, ബോട്ടണി 6, കെമിസ്ട്രി 59, എൻ‌ജിനീയറിംഗ് 0, മാത്തമാറ്റിക്സ് 1, ഫിസിക്സ് 0, സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സ് 3, സുവോളജി 44)

മെഡിസിൻ വകുപ്പിലെ ഗവേഷണ തല്പരത അഭിനന്ദനാർഹം തന്നെ. പക്ഷെ മറ്റ് സർവ്വകലാശാലകളുമായി താരതമ്യപ്പെടുത്തുമ്പോൾ ഇവിടെയും നമ്മുടെ പ്രവർത്തനം മോശമാണ്. ലഖ്നൌ (519 ലേഖനങ്ങൾ), ആന്ധ്ര (319), ബോംബെ (211), നാഗപ്പൂർ (106), ദെൽഹി (84), ബറോഡ (77), പൂന (64), കൽക്കത്ത (51) എന്നീ സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ നമ്മുടെ മുന്നിലുണ്ട്. ആറു വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 41 ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങൾ തയ്യാറാക്കിയ ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വരയും, അഞ്ചു വർഷങ്ങളിൽ 26 എണ്ണം തയ്യാറാക്കിയ ബനാറസും രണ്ട് വർഷങ്ങളിൽ 34 എണ്ണം തയ്യാറാക്കിയ പാട്നയും എണ്ണത്തിൽ പിന്നിലെങ്കിലും ഗവേഷണ പ്രവർത്തനത്തിൽ നമ്മുടെ മുന്നിലാണ്.

മെഡിസിനിൽ കേരളത്തിൽ നടക്കുന്ന ഗവേഷണത്തിന്റെ നിലവാരം മെച്ചമല്ലെന്നു വേണം കരുതുവാൻ. എന്തെന്നാൽ ലഖ്നൌ 56ഉം ബോംബെ 31ഉം ദെൽഹി 24ഉം പൂന 16ഉം ബറോഡ 12ഉം കൽക്കത്ത ഒൻപതും നാഗപ്പൂർ എട്ടും ബനാറസും ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വരയും ആറും പാട്നയും ആന്ധ്രയും രണ്ടും ലേഖനങ്ങൾ വിദേശീയമാസികകളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചപ്പോൾ നമ്മുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയിൽ എഴുതപ്പെട്ടവയിൽ ഒരെണ്ണത്തിനു മാത്രമെ ആ ബഹുമതി ലഭിച്ചുള്ളു.

മറ്റ് വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ എഴുതപ്പെട്ടവയും വിദേശരാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിയ്ക്കപ്പെട്ടവയുമായ ലേഖനങ്ങളുടെ കണക്കുകൾ താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു.

ബോട്ടണി – ദെൽഹി 193, കൽക്കത്ത 103, ലഖ്നൌ 34, അലാഹാബാദ് 23, ഗൌഹാട്ടി 17, മദിരാശി 14, ആന്ധ്ര 13, പഞ്ചാബ് 13, ഉത്ക്കൽ 12, പൂന 9, ഉസ്മാനിയ 6, അണ്ണാമല 6, കേരളം 6.

കെമിസ്ട്രി – അലാഹാബാദ് 233, ആന്ധ്ര 159, ലഖ്നൌ 150, ജാദവ്പൂർ 148, കൽക്കത്ത 101, മദിരാശി 75, ദെൽഹി 70, ബനാറസ് 65, ബറോഡ 61, നാഗപ്പൂർ 54, അണ്ണാമല 45, ആലിഗഢ് 21, പൂന 21, പഞ്ചാബ് 20, ഉത്ക്കൽ 11, ബോംബെ 7,  ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 7, കേരളം 6.

സുവോളജി – ബറോഡ 58, ലഖ്നൌ 46, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 46, മൈസൂർ 38, മദിരാശി 36, ഉസ്മാനിയ 31, ദെൽഹി 30, കൽക്കത്ത 25, അലാഹാബാദ് 24, ആലിഗഢ് 14, ആന്ധ്ര 14, പൂന 12, പഞ്ചാബ് 11, ബനാറസ് 10, ഉത്ക്കൽ 7, അണ്ണാമല 7, നാഗപ്പൂർ 5, പാട്ന 3, ബോംബെ 2, ജബൽ‌പൂർ 2, കർണ്ണാടക 2, സാഗർ 2, കേരളം 2.

എൻ‌ജിനീയറിംഗ് – ആന്ധ്ര 51, ബോംബെ 18, മദിരാശി 13, നാഗപ്പൂർ 12, ജാദവ്പൂർ 11, അലാഹാബാദ് 7, ഉസ്മാനിയ 6, ദെൽഹി 3, ആലിഗഢ് 2, ബനാറസ് 2, ബറോഡ 1, ഗൌഹാട്ടി 1, കേരളം 0.

മാത്തമാറ്റിക്സ് – ലഖ്നൌ 56, ദെൽഹി 49, ആന്ധ്ര 26, കൽക്കത്ത 24, ജാദവ്പൂർ 21, മദിരാശി 12, ഉത്ക്കൽ 11, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 11, ഉസ്മാനിയ 9, അണ്ണാമല 7, അലാഹാബാദ് 6, കർണ്ണാടക 6, ആലിഗഢ് 5, ബനാറസ് 5, ബോംബെ 5, നാഗപ്പൂർ 5, പൂന 4, സാഗർ 4,. മൈസൂർ 3, പഞ്ചാബ് 3, പാട്ന 2, ബറോഡ 1, ഗൌഹാട്ടി 1, കേരളം 0.  

ഫിസിക്സ് – മദിരാശി 103, അലാഹാബാദ് 98, ആന്ധ്ര 89, ബോംബെ 78, അണ്ണാമല 72, ദെൽഹി 66, ഉസ്മാനിയ 49, കൽക്കത്ത 45, ബനാറസ് 37, ജാദവ്പൂർ 26, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 25, ലഖ്നൌ 19, പൂന 16, ഉത്ക്കൽ 12, കർണ്ണാടക 10, ബറോഡ 7, ആലിഗഢ് 6, പഞ്ചാബ് 4, നാഗപ്പൂർ 4, കേരളം 4.

സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സ് – ബോംബെ 23, പൂന 17, കർണ്ണാടക 16, ബറോഡ 12, അണ്ണാമല 9, ഗൌഹാട്ടി 4,. ആന്ധ്ര 3, കൽക്കത്ത 3, ലഖ്നൌ 3, ആലിഗഢ് 2, ദെൽഹി 2, മദിരാശി 2, നാഗപ്പൂർ 2, പാട്ന 2, ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വര 1, കേരളം 0.

മിക്കവാറും എല്ലാ സർവ്വകലാശാലകളും ഒന്നോ അധിലധികമോ വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ പ്രത്യേകം താല്പര്യമെടുക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് മേൽക്കൊടുത്തിരിക്കുന്ന കണക്കുകൾ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു. കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയാകട്ടെ എല്ലാ വിഷയങ്ങളിലും പിന്നിലാണ്.

ഓരോ വിഷയത്തിലും നിരവധി ഉപവിഷയങ്ങളുണ്ടല്ലൊ. ചില സർവ്വകലാശാലകൾ ചില ഉപവിഷയങ്ങളിൽ സ്പെഷ്യലൈസ് ചെയ്യുന്നു. കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാല ഏതെങ്കിലും ഉപവിഷയങ്ങളിൽ സ്പെഷ്യലൈസ് ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ അത് ബോട്ടണിയിൽ‌പ്പെട്ട സൈറ്റോജെനിറ്റിക്സ് (cytogenetics) ലും വെറ്റെറിനറി സയൻസിൽപ്പെട്ട പത്തോളജി (pathology) യിലുമാണ്.

സൈറ്റോജെനിറ്റിക്സിൽ പത്തുവർഷങ്ങളിലായി നമ്മുടെ ഗവേഷകർ 16 ലേഖനങ്ങൾ തയ്യാറാക്കിയതായി കാണുന്നു. എന്നാൽ കൽക്കത്ത ഇതേ ഉപവിഷയത്തിൽ കേവലം ഏഴു വർഷങ്ങളിലായി 115 ലേഖനങ്ങളാണ് തയ്യാറാക്കിയത്. മറ്റ് ചില സർവ്വകലാശാലകളുടെ കണക്കുകൾ കൂടി നോക്കുക. പാട്ന (രണ്ട് വർഷം) 26, പഞ്ചാബ് (ഒരു വർഷം) 10, ദെൽഹി (10 വർഷം) 30, ആന്ധ്ര (10 വർഷം) 19. അപ്പോൾ ഈ ഉപവിഷയത്തിലും നമ്മുടെ സ്ഥാനം മുൻപന്തിയിലല്ല.

വെറ്റെറിനറി സയൻസിൽ നാലു സർവ്വകലാശാലകളെ ഗവേഷണം ണടത്തുന്നുള്ളു. ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ കണക്ക് ഇപ്രകാരമാണ്. ഉത്ക്കൽ 41, കേരളം 18, ശ്രീവെകിടേശ്വര 13, മൈസൂർ 1. ഉത്ക്കലും ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വരയും കേരളത്തെപ്പോലെ പത്തോളജിയിലാണ് സ്പെഷ്യലൈസ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്. ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ ഉത്ക്കൽ ഗവേഷകർ 33ഉം അവരുടെ കേരളത്തിലെയും ശ്രീവെങ്കിടേശ്വരയിലെയും സഹപ്രവർത്തകർ ഏഴു വീതവും ലേഖനങ്ങളാണ് രചിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്. മൈസൂറിന്റെ ഏക ഗവേഷണ പ്രബന്ധവും ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ തന്നെ.

തീരെയില്ല

എൻ‌ജിനീയറിംഗ്, മാത്തമാറ്റിക്സ്, സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സ് എന്നീ‍ വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ കേരളത്തിൽ ഗവേഷണ പ്രവർത്തനം തീരെയില്ലെന്നു വേണം പറയുവാൻ.  ഈ വിഷയങ്ങളിൽ ഒരു ലേഖനം പോലും ഇന്ത്യയിലേയോ വിദേശങ്ങളിലേയോ മാസികകളിൽ നമ്മുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയിൽ നിന്നും പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കുകയുണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല. എൻ‌ജിനീയറിംഗിൽ ഒരാൾ പോലും ഗവേഷണം നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ലെന്നതാണ് പരമാർത്ഥം. .മാത്തമാറ്റുക്സിൽ ഒരാൾ ഒരു ലേഖനമെഴുതി. പക്ഷെ അത് നമ്മുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണത്തിൽ മാത്രമാണ് പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെട്ടത്.

സ്റ്റാറ്റിസ്റ്റിക്സിൽ ആറു പേർ ചേർന്ന് ഏഴ് ലേഖനങ്ങളെഴുതി. അവയിൽ മൂന്നെണ്ണം കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണത്തിൽ ചേർക്കപ്പെട്ടു. മറ്റ് നാലെണ്ണവും ഇന്ത്യൻ സയൻസ് കോൺഗ്രസിൽ വായിക്കപ്പെട്ടു. ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ പ്രശസ്തരായ അദ്ധ്യാപകർ നമ്മുടെ സർവ്വകലാശാലയിൽ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുവെന്ന് പ്രത്യേകം ഓർമ്മിക്കണം.

കേരള സർവ്വകലാശാലയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനം ഇത്ര പരിതാപകരമാകാനുള്ള കാരണങ്ങളെന്താണെന്ന് നാം പരിശോധിക്കണം.നമ്മുടെ സംസ്ഥാനത്തിന്റെ പുരോഗതിയിൽ താല്പര്യമുള്ളവർക്കാർക്കും ഇന്നത്തെ സ്ഥിതി പൊറുക്കുവാൻ സാധിക്കുകയില്ല. എന്തെന്നാൽ നമ്മെ അലട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന പ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്ക് പരിഹാരം കാണേണ്ടത് നമ്മുടെ ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞന്മാരാണ്. മറ്റ് സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിൽ നിന്ന് വിദഗ്ദ്ധന്മാർ വന്ന് നമ്മുടെ പ്രശ്നങ്ങൾ പഠിച്ച് പ്രതിവിധികൾ നിർദ്ദേശിക്കുമെന്ന് കരുതുന്നത് വിഡ്ഡിത്തമാണ്.

(മാതൃഭൂമി ആഴ്ചപ്പത്പ്പ്, പുസ്തകം 43, ലക്കം 49, 1966 ഫെബ്രുവരി 20)                                                                                                                   

Freedom at Midnight: Eminently readable

Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre on New Delhi's Rajpath with the Rolls Royce car in which they travelled in India

FREEDOM AT MIDNIGHT by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Vikas Publishing House Private Limited, Delhi, 1976. Rs 45.

Guy de Maupassant once described history as "that excited and deceitful old woman". Another Frenchman, Dominique Lapierre, with an American collaborator, Larry Collins, has rejuvenated the venerable lady. In their work, :Freedom at Midnight,: history appears as a young voluptuous woman, although perhaps still excited and deceitful.

Lapierre, working for Paris Match, and Collins, reporting for Newsweek, came together in the gay city of Paris. It was the beginning of a great enterprise, destined to blossom into a multimillion dollar business in a short while. Their line of business is difficult to define. It is a three-way crossbreed of history, journalism and creative writing. Much as the pair would like their hybrid products to be accepted as works of history, the aristocracy of history is unlikely to welcome these half-castes with open arms.

The Collins-Lapierre undertaking's first product bore the title "Is Paris Burning?". It was followed by "Or I'll Dress You in Mourning". Then came "O Jerusalem". As the titles themselves suggest, their creators are imbued with a high sense of drama. The phenomenal success of the early works encouraged them to look out for new themes to tackle. Instinctively they sensed the dramatic possibilities of the events that swept the Indian subcontinent in the momentous forties. All the ingredients for a new masterpiece were present, readymade as it were: heroic characters, suspenseful moments, blood and thunder aplenty. Aided by a team of researchers, they began organizing the material. Once it was ready, they set down to distil it. And what a heady concoction they have produced!

The historian and the journalist share a common concern for facts and objectivity. The historian and the creative writer both attempt to create a world marked by order, logic and reason. The journalist and the creative writer both strive to produce material that can hold the reader's attention. If the crafts of the historian, the journalist and the creative writer have certain similar features, so have they certain dissimilar features. When the three are mixed, as in the works of Collins and Lapierre, controversy is inevitable.   

Since Collins and Lapierre have staked their claims as historians, the criticism levelled against their work in this regard needs to be examined. So sharp has been the attack on them by others who have written books of their own that one is reminded of the saying that "history is something that never happened, written by a man who wasn't there".

There are two types of historians: the eyewitness historian who participated in the events he narrates or at any rate watched them from close quarters and the technical historian who comes along much later and recaptures the events of the past. Strictly speaking, Collins and Lapierre do not fall into either category. They are creative historians attempting to combine the techniques of both: while drawing on eyewitness material (first, second and third -hand) they also try (to borrow the expression of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.) "to find interconnections and unities". If that makes their work suspect as history, it also adds to its charm.

While historians may consider Collins and Lapierre imposters, journalists have no reason to disown them. They spoke to about 500 Indians, Pakistanis and English men and women to get detailed accounts of the events they wished to write about. They travelled 250,000 kilometres. Within the subcontinent they covered no fewer than 10,000 kilometres. They delved into 6,000 pages of eyewitness accounts, listened to 800 hours of tapes, viewed 6,000 metres of film and scanned 1,000 photographs before producing the final manuscript. 

For journalists who did painstaking work for four years, they have committed innumerable errors. For instance, they mention William Hawkins as having come to India on the first voyage organized by the English East India Company. (He was on the third.) They say Jawaharlal Nehru was born in Srinagar. (He was born in Allahabad.) They describe Maniben Patel as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's only child. (She was one of his two children, the other being former Swatantra leader Dahyabhai Patel.) They characterize Tamil as a language that is written up and down. (It is written from left to right, like English and French.) Mistakes of this kind are legion. While they reveal carelessness, they do not affect the course of the narrative materially.

Indian critics have charged the authors with distorting facts. In considering this charge, it must be remembered that truth often has many versions. It is quite possible for different persons to give different versions of the same event in all honesty. We cannot also overlook the fact that the critics themselves are not disinterested parties. In relation to the Collins-Lapierre work, Indians (including their sources) fall into three categories: (1) those who have participated in the events they narrate; (2) those who imagine they participated in them; and (3) those who wish they had participated in them. While most persons in the first category are dead, many in the other two are alive and kicking. It is, therefore, natural that the authors should get a few kicks for their errors of commission and omission, some of them genuine, some not.

Collins and Lapierre are not the first to take upon themselves the task of telling the story of the triumph and tragedy of Indian nationalism. They differ from their predecessors chiefly in their freedom from the illusion that they had shaped the course of events. Happily they make no claims for themselves or for anyone else -- not even for their hero and Prince Charming, Louis Mountbatten. Indeed, the picture that emerges from their gripping narrative is  one of great forces shaping the course men rather than of great men shaping the course of events.

Creative writers cannot do without heroes -- and villains. Collins and Lapierre found so many of the former that they could pick and choose. Eventually they settled for two heroes rather than one: Mountbatten and Mohandas Gandhi. Others, like Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, were assigned supporting roles. Mohammad Ali Jinnah filled the bill as the villain.

They have glorified Gandhi in almost the same terms as we in India do. However, they have not seen Jinnah the way the Pakistanis do. As they put it, "The only thing Moslem about Mohammad Ali Jinnah was his parents' religion. He drank, ate pork, religiously shaved his beard each morning and just as religiously avoided the mosque each Friday. God and Koran had no place in Jinnah's vision of the world." Jinnah's transition from an ardent advocate of nationalism and secularism to the champion of Muslim nationhood is not delineated convincingly. The reported ban on the book in Pakistan is easy to understand since Jinnah is cast in the role of an Iago.

The authors' literary technique is noteworthy. The narrative is interspersed with innumerable anecdotes, some significant, some trivial, but all delightful. They are the spice which gives this literary fare its unique flavour.

Collins and Lapierre apparently wrote the book keeping in mind the cinematic possibilities. It reads very much like the scenario of a movie of epic proportions. It is bound to yield a film which is as great, as controversial and as successful as the book itself.

To those familiar with the events surrounding India's emergence into freedom the book offers precious little by way of new facts. What is new about it is the way the facts are presented and interpreted. On devoting a good deal of time to get a first-hand account from the surviving members of the Gandhi murder conspiracy, the authors have illuminated an area from which Indian writers have shied away. It is, however, open to question whether the unearthing of information like the alleged homosexual relationship between V.D. Savarkar and Nathuram Godse makes any worthwhile addition to our understanding of their motivations. Lapierre's explanation is that  they wanted to give an insight into the psychology of the assassins. Granting that such information can serve a useful purpose, the question still remains whether they exercised their judgment properly in relying upon the solitary testimony of Gopal Godse for their account of Nathuram's sex life. Was he his brother's keeper?

Howsoever much Collins and Lapierre may be criticized in India, they have rendered a service to India by focussing international attention on a decisive moment of its history. Despite the errors and distortions, the overall image of India that emerges from this book is a favourable one, and that should go some way to assuage the feelings of those who denounce it for seemingly patriotic reasons.

Whatever its faults, "Freedom at Midnight" is eminently readable. The reader can sit back and enjoy it thoroughly even when he knows nothing of the psychological make-up of Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre and their sexual habits,

B.R.P. BHASKAR

This review appeared in the April 1976 issue of Indian Press,

published by the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society.

              

               

Solidarity with striking FTII students

With Adoor Gopalakrishnan at the rally to express solidarity with students of the Film and Television Institute of India, Pune, who arre on strike protesting against the appointment of underserving candidates as its chief and members of the governing body. Location: Manaveeyam Veedhi, Thiruvananthapuram. Date: June 21, 2015.

Human Rights training programmes

When I moved to Thiruvananthapuram from Bangaluru in 1992, Rev Dr M. A, Thomas, Founder President of Vigil India Movement asked me to function as Honorary Secretary in Kerala.

In that capacity I conducted a number of human rights training programmes for young people. Above picture shows participants and resource persons who attended a programme in Thiruvananthapuram.

Malayala Manorama sent 75 selected members of its Balajana Sakhyam to attend a camp held at Charalkunnu.

EAST EUROPE 1990

The dream that failed

          -------------------------------------------------------

The decline and fall of the communist state has left many ecstatic and many others bewildered. East Europe's former ruling parties have moved so far away from communist ideology that they know shun the hammer-and-sickle symbol and prefer terms like socialism and social democracy.

      In this article, B.R.P. BHASKAR, who visited the Soviet Union and East Europe recently, analyses the factors that led to the collapse of communism which its adherents believed was destined to win.

             --------------------------------------------------- 

As the First World War was raging in Europe, Vladimir Lenin shook the world by establishing the first communist state on earth. As the Second World War ended, many more countries came under the communist banner. And the new world order promised by the prophets of communism appeared to be within reach.

Gradually, however, the communist dream started fading. One by one, East Europe’s communist states fell last year, burying under their debris the vision of a casteless society.

With the Soviet Union and China too moving along the path of reform, communism, as preached and practiced for decades, is fast disappearing. While those who were associated with the communist movement in the days of its ascendancy are struggling to come to terms with the new reality, its critics are clearly ecstatic. Neither side appears to be making an objective appraisal of how the hope of the masses turned into the despair of millions.

A close look at recent developments in East Europe will help understand the factors that led to the decline and fall of the communist state.

Poland was the first to move away from the communist path. Here, all through the years of communist rule, nationalist sentiments had been sustained by the Catholic Church. The Solidarity trade union, which took birth in the ship-building yard at Gdansk, built up a strong anti-communist movement in the early 80’s.

As far back as 1981 it was evident that the people were with Solidarity, and not the Polish United Workers Party, which was the official name of the communist party. At that time Solidarity had a membership of nine million in a population of 40 million. The PUWP membership was only one million. Nevertheless, the PUWP stayed put, not being bound by the democratic practice of allowing the majority party to rule. The PUWP regime resorted to martial law to enforce its authority.

By 1989 Solidarity had weakened considerably. At that stage the PUWP relented. It called a general election in which, for the first time in a communist set-up, voters were given the opportunity to choose their representatives freely for a limited number of seats.

The seats thrown open for free choice were so few that the PUWP reckoned it could retain power with the help of the Democratic Party and the Peasants Party, its long-time coalition partners.

Its calculations went wrong when Solidarity, after making a clean sweep of all open seats, won over the Democratic Party and the Peasants Party to its side. Reduced to a minority, the best the PUWP could do was to settle down to being a minor partner in a Solidarity-led government.

Soon afterwards, the PUWP bade good-bye to communism. It took on a new identity as the Social Democratic Party.

In Hungary, the Communist Party threw out its hard-line leadership, renamed itself the Hungarian Socialist Party and ordered multi-party elections. A small group of communists who did not approve of the change decided to keep the old party going.

Like Hungary, Bulgaria too witnessed a peaceful transition. The Bulgarian Communist Party ousted the long-reigning strongman Todor Zhivkov, converted itself into the Bulgarian Socialist Party and set a date for free elections.

Where the ruling parties refused to change, brief popular movements, which sometimes turned violent, brought down the governments, paving the way for elections. The East German Workers Party became the Party of Democratic Socialism. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia yielded power to a hastily assembled coalition of pro-democracy groups. Somehow it missed the chance to assume a new identity, but it was made known that it had given up faith in such concepts as democratic centralism and dictatorship of the proletariat.

Romania witnessed the most violent transition. President Nicolae Ceasescu was overthrown and executed along with his wife after trial by a kangaroo court. So strong were the popular sentiments against the Caesescu regime that the National Salvation Front, which assumed office, felt obliged to dissolve the communist party and disband the secret police. Ironically, these steps enabled the communists to join one or another of a host of political griups that emerged and seized power under the banner of the Front.

                                            The fading red

The communist parties of East Europe not only jettisoned the ideological baggage but also adopted new symbols in their desperate bid to project a new image. The familiar hammer-and-sickle symbol of working class unity is shunned by many of them now. Czechoslovakia’s communists, while retaining the party’s name, have adopted a new symbol – the cherry tree. The Bulgarian Communist Party, rechristened the Bulgarian Socialist Party, has the red rose as its symbol. 

The changes in East Europe were a direct consequence of the reforms initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. His twin programmes of glasnost and perestroika eroded two basic features of the communist state: extreme secrecy and rigid central control. These features which brought discredit to communism are now denounced without exception by the East European parties which worked the system for decades. They attribute these features to the distortion of communism under Josef Stalin.

Not long after Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev had repudiated his legacy. But the system was too well entrenched ti be reformed easily. Thus, while Stalin stood discredited, Stalinism survived. Outside the Soviet Union Stalin continued to have ardent followers.

The fall of the communist governments in quick succession is generally explained in terms of the domino effect. However, according to a theory advanced by some East European observers, the changes were not merely inspired by Gorbachev but actually instigated by Moscow. The proponents of this theory hold that where the communist parties did not replace the Stalinist leadership voluntarily, anti-government movements were engineered by the Soviet secret police (KGB) with the help of its local counterparts. In some instances, it is said, the movements went out of their control.

This theory gained so much currency in Czechoslovakia that the new regime there ordered a judicial inquiry into the role of the secret police in fomenting trouble. The findings of the inquiry have not been released so far.

It must be noted that even those communist states which were not aligned with the Soviet Union have witnessed changes. Yugoslavia, which had broken with Moscow a long time ago to strike out an independent socialist path, has also opted for a multi-party system. Albania, plodding a lonely furrow after having been a camp-follower of China for many years, has announced a programme of limited economic and political reforms.

It is not as if the changes now sweeping the communist world started with Gorbachev. Even before he arrived on the scene, China had embarked upon a programme of economic reform which took it away from the traditional communist path. Under Deng Ziaopong’s leadership, the Communist Party of China not only allowed private enterprise but threw open large areas of the country to foreign capital. The new thinking of the Chinese communist leadership was voiced by the then party General Secretary, Zhao Ziyang, at the party congress in 1988 when he said that absolute egalitarianism was neither desirable nor practical, and some people should be helped to become rich first.

There is an important difference between the current Soviet and Chinese situations. The Soviet Union, while moving hesitantly on the economic front, has made much progress on the political front. In fact, over the past five years, Gorbachev has quietly shifted effective power from the Communist Party to the state. The KGB, for instance, is now under the government, not under the party. Party functionaries who exercised political power at various levels are all still there, but the functions performed by them have been taken away and entrusted to government departments.

China, on the other hand, has moved forward on the economic front without attempting serious political reform. Over the past decade, as a result of the policy initiated by Deng, sections of the people have attained a new level of prosperioty. But the Communist Party continues to have a vice-like grip on all aspects of Chinese life.

The situation in neither country is conducive to long-term stability. When political and economic changes do not keep pace with each other the results can be disastrous. The ultimate test of political progress is the extent to which it helps in meeting the economic needs of the people. Persistent economic discontent is certain to result in political unrest. That is the problem the Soviet Union is facing. New forces generated by economic changes inevitably seek opportunities for political expression. If the political system does not accommodate these forces, it is bound to come under strain. This is the problem that China is facing.  

The sweeping changes in the communist world have naturally enthused Western observers who view them as vindication of their views on the evils of Marxism. The popular mood in East Europe is one of euphoria over the newly-won freedom. Communist spokesmen readily acknowledge that their regimes had failed.

Why did communism, which its adherents believed was destined to win, collapse like a house of cards? Why have parties which made communism their guiding principle turned against it so much that they are unwilling to use the term “communist” today, preferring instead labels like social democracy or democratic socialism? Before proceeding to answer these questions, it is perhaps necessary to examine some of the assumptions behind them. Were the communist states in fact practising communism? Were the ruling parties in the communist parties really committed to communist ideology?

Karl Marx envisaged communism as a new stage in the evolution of human society. He saw it as a stage that lay beyond capitalism, which was still growing in his time. Czarist Russia was not yet a developed capitalist society when Lenin steered the Bolshevik movement to victory, taking advantage of conditions favourable to a revolution. He interpreted Marx’s theories to suit his needs.

Years later, Mao Zedong similarly staged a successful revolution in a country that had barely emerged from the shadow of feudalism. He interpreted Marx and Lenin to suit his situation. While communists seized power in countries which did not fulfil the criteria laid down by Marx, those where capitalism flourished and which were thus, in theory, ready for revolution somehow missed the proletarian revolution they were told to expect.

Marx conceived communist society as a self-regulating social organism in which the state having no further role to play as an instrument of oppression will wither away. The communist rulers did not build such a society. It remained a distant goal throughout. In the meantime, the communist state, far from showing signs of withering away, grew into an even more powerful instrument of oppression. At the hands of his devout followers, Marx suffered the fate that had befallen many religious teachers before him: his teachings were distorted in practice even as he was deified.

In considering the developments in East Europe, it is pertinent to remember that the communist parties triumphed in the region not as a result of a revolutionary upsurge but as a fallout of the Soviet Union’s emergence as the dominant power of the region.

There is irony in the choice of new labels by the communist parties. At the turn of the century social democratic parties were gaining strength on Europe. These parties, which endeavoured to combine the virtues of liberal democracy and social justice, appeared to be harbingers of a new era. In several countries, including Russia, communists functioned within the framework of social democratic parties.

In the inter-War period, the social democratic parties and peasants’ parties which championed the cause of farmers were forces to reckon with. In many countries they were vying with the communist parties for supremacy. Gradually, both groups were overshadowed by fascist elements who emerged on top by deftly exploiting the popular disenchantment resulting from the failure of democratic institutions to cope effectively with the worsening economic situation.

After the Second World War, the social democratic parties and the peasants’ parties rose again. However, the Soviet Union could get them to provide the communist parties a larger share in coalition governments than was warranted by their size or influence. In a matter of two or three years the communists grabbed the leadership of the coalition.

Thus, in East Europe, communist power grew out of the barrels of Soviet guns. Tito’sYugoslavia, which was not indebted to the Soviet army for freedom from Nazi occupation to the same extent as its neighbours, could break away from Moscow’s control. But when Hungary and Czechoslovakia tried to take the same road, the Soviets did not hesitate to use their tanks.

As the communist parties grew in the shadow of the Soviet Union they absorbed the social democratic parties, mostly through forced mergers. Today, the reborn communist parties, in their quest for a new identity, find it most convenient to adopt the socialist or social democratic label because their new objectives are no different from those of the old social democratic parties.  

Both the Soviets and the Chinese are at pains to project the changes under way in their countries as a process of socialist renewal. But there is no denying the fact that there has been a change in direction.

It will, however, be wrong to equate their new-found interest in the virtues of the free market with willingness to accept the capitalist system. So far as the Soviet Union and East Europe are concerned, the current ideal is the Scandinavian welfare state.

Some Soviet academics, while remaining in the Communist Party, have started describing themselves as social democrats. In the era of virtual one-party rule, many sported the communist badge because it was an invaluable aid for advancement in any walk of life. For those who wished to take part in public life, communist party membership offered the best prospects. When the party fell on evil days, there was naturally a sharp drop in membership. Careerists and opportunists no loger have any use for the party.

Commenting on the swift disintegration of the Polish party after transfer of power, a Solidarity spokesman said: “They were never communists. That was why it was easy for them to shed their old identity and take a new one.”

In the Soviet Union, where the struggle for a new identity is still on, a large section of party members is reported to have become inactive since the emergence of distinct ideological groups. But some communist parties, especially those of Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, claim that they are attracting new members, mostly youths, to offset partly the loss of old cadres. Since these people have chosen to throw in their lot with the party at a time of adversity the leadership considers the future bright.

Significantly, in the elections in Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party, performing better than expected, collected nearly 15 per cent of the votes polled. In Bulgaria, the communists, fighting under the Socialist Party banner, managed to retain power.

To the extent the communist system of economic management has been shown up as inefficient, it is inevitable that the communist-ruled countries should want to switch to a free market economy. But it remains to be seen how far the free market system can help them. A free market by itself does not guarantee economic progress. If the free market system too fails to fulfil the economic asporations of the people, there is bound to be a backlash. It is difficult to foresee at this stage who will benefit by such a development – socialists or fascists.

As unemployment soars under the new dispensation, a nostalgia for the good old days may develop at least in those at the worse end of the stick. At that stage the beneficial aspects of socialism, which are now overlooked in the anxiety to get rid of its harsh aspects, may be appreciated better. It is then that a genuine social democratic movement can hope to succeed.

This article, and the companion piece below, appeared in the Deccan Herald, Bangalore, on Sunday, July 15, 1990.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘It’s communism vs consumerism’

The dominant impression in my mind after visiting the Soviet Union and several East European countries and discussing recent developments with communist party spokesmen is that many are too dazed by the pace of events to make a realistic appraisal.

Asked what brought about the collapse of the communist regime, the official spokesman of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia responded with disarming frankness: “That is what I would like to know myself.”

His deputy hypothesized that the Communist Party had tried to realize real socialism, as distinct from the democratic socialism of the Socialist International. In the process, he said, real socialism was distorted. He added: “It is necessary to study this as a false way of socialism.”

The spokesman of the Polish Social Democratic Party said: “Communism is a beautiful dream. Our mistake was to have imagined we could realize it.”

Sergei B. Stankevich, a young People’s Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and scholar attached to the Institute of Universal History under the USSR Academy of Sciences, said socialism was a historical trend, not a social system.”

“Where did communism go wrong – in theory or in practice?” I asked him.

“In both,” Stankevich replied. To begin with, he said, there were mistakes in theory. He identified the failure to create new modes of production as one of the major weaknesses of the system practised in the Soviet Union.

Stankevich said there was a wide gap between theory and practice. When this became obvious, the leadership failed to face it with a sense of realism. Instead, it erected artificial structures to hide the situation.

“All artificial constructions are roads to disaster,” he said.

Marxists can take comfort in the fact that economic factors were the determinants in the critical situation that developed in the communist world.

Communism lost not to capitalism as such, but to consumerism which was spawned by capitalism. Strange as it may seem, communism, which in theory is based on scientific principles, proved less efficient than capitalism in coping with the needs of a changing world.

Consequently, while the communists waited for capitalism to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, their own house crumbled over their heads.

In capitalist societies, democratic pluralism provided outlets for popular discontent to manifest itself. In communist societies, where such outlets were lacking,discontent kept mounting, and the options before the state were to suppress it or to surrender. For long, the state suppressed it; then it surrendered. 

---BRPB

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As newspapers prosper, journalism declines

I received a letter from R. K. Mishra, Editor of Patriot, early in 1988 asking for an article for the special number the newspaper was planning to publish to mark the completion of 25 years. I decided to use the opportunity to discuss the state of the press. 

Patriot  was launched in March 1963 by a company of which Aruna Asaf Ali was the chairperson and Dr A.V. Baliga of Bombay the chief promoter. Edatata Narayanan was the Editor  I was a member of the founding editorial team but left the paper after two years. 

PATRIOT’s quarter century spans an eventful period in the history of Indian journalism as well as politics. These 25 years have seen a generational change in both these fields.

Before Patriot’s appearance the Indian press was characterized by much of a muchness, thanks at least in part to the ideological uniformity enforced by the common economic interests of newspaper owners. Lacking the courage to challenge Jawaharlal Nehru directly, the Big Business press picked on his associates with pronounced leftist leanings. It was in this context that Patriot came on the scene with a clarion call to the people to be “on guard against Reaction”.

Since then the battle lines have got blurred. Indeed, in the prevailing eclectic atmosphere, ideology itself seems to have lost its relevance.  Looking back, there can be differences of opinion on what Patriot was able to accomplish in the battlefield of ideologies. But on one point there can be no difference: among the English-language newspapers with their sickening sameness it has stood out as something which looks different and reads different.

The most striking aspect of the transformation that has taken place in the Indian press in the last 25 years is the infusion of new technology. It is worth noting that the leadership in this area came from the small and medium newspapers, and not from the Big Business press with vast resources and immense managerial expertise.

In fact, with the singular exception of The Hindu (which, incidentally, has been the technology leader during much of its existence of more than a century), the earliest to adopt the new technology based on photo-composing and offset printing were some Indian language publications and English newspapers which did not form part of the big league. While the Government was willing to relax its tight import policy to permit modernization of the newspaper industry, the large newspapers in the arrogance of their affluence ignored the possibilities opened up by the new technology. Evidently the managerial whiz kids did not serve their institutions well in a critical period. Because of their utter incompetence, the large newspapers are paying a heavy price today as the compulsions of competition have forced upon them the decision they sought to avoid earlier.

Less striking from the point of view of the ordinary reader, but more damaging to the cause of press freedom is the progressive devaluation of the editor during the last 25 years.

The age of heroism which saw the rise of great men in politics had also seen the emergence of great editors. They were men who earned the respect of the community they served by the devotion with which they espoused its causes. Even when their reach was limited to a few thousands they commanded influence of a kind which eludes today’s editors with access to millions of readers.

The decline of the editor started soon after Independence when the large newspapers became appendages of industrial houses. As the process continued, in several institutions the editor’s area of responsibility shrank. Today there are few editors who are masters of their house or even team leaders in a real sense.

Somewhere along the way to media moghuldom Ramnath Goenka made the discovery that he can bring out a newspaper without an editor. Someone else invented the device of an executive editor to reduce the editor to a figurehead.

As the power of the editor declined, managerial busybodies emerged as the effective power centres in newspaper establishments. Not content with the authority they wielded a few of them have sought self-glorification by getting their names inscribed in the imprint lines, sometimes above those of their editors, to proclaim to the world at large where each stands in the warrant of precedence. Had not the law enjoined upon the press to print the names of the editor, along with those of the printer and publisher, the devalued species may even have become extinct by now.

No tears need be shed for most of the editors, for few among them have commanded the respect of their juniors and fewer still have displayed the necessary modicum of self-respect when the occasion demanded it. But the virtual destruction of the organic relationship that once existed between the editor and the newspaper reading community is something to weep over.

Today we have newspaper chains extending from Chandigarh to Cochin and from Ahmedabad to Patna which flaunt in their editions names of editors based so far removed from the many locations where the processes of editing, printing and publishing are carried out that they cannot develop the same close ties with their readers as the editors of yore even if they were inclined to try.

The institution of resident editors which was designed to fill the gap of absentee editors has been a dismal failure.

Some years ago when there was a minor furore over the unceremonious ouster of B.G. Varghese from the editorship of The Hindustan Times, a young researcher conducted a survey among the newspaper’s readers in Delhi to find out what they thought about it. To his dismay he found that many HT readers did not know that Varghese had been its editor. Readers who are able to identify resident editors must indeed be negligible.

A direct consequence of the decline of the editor is the deterioration in the editorial quality of the newspapers. Fortunately for the newspapers, the average reader does not easily notice such deterioration. In recent times, improvements on the production side have in fact helped many of them to hide professional shortcomings on the editorial side. What is more, commercial prosperity has induced in them the delusion that all is hunky-dory.

The theory propagated by the large newspapers that they are the perpetual winners in a daily referendum is based on the fallacious belief that the readers make a free choice on a continuous basis. The fact is that competition in the newspaper industry is more imaginary than real.

A careful analysis of the growth of circulations will show that, barring rare exceptions, there is no evidence of readers switching from one newspaper to another. By and large the recorded improvements in circulation have been achieved not at the expense of other newspapers but by drawing from the ranks of new readers thrown up by burgeoning population and spreading education.

The newspapers that are growing faster than the rest are simply the ones that happen to have greater ability to pull in new readers than the others. A close scrutiny will reveal that this ability is determined by diverse factors. Neither editorial excellence nor managerial expertise has a decisive place among them.

A sad consequence of the decline of the editor is that the new entrants in the journalistic profession are deprived of the opportunity to get a good grounding under a competent leadership. This situation must necessarily lead to a further fall in standards over the coming decades unless conscious efforts are made early to stem the rot.

The press has always been a wide open field, and must remain so. From time to time charlatans have entered the field and held sway. But they have operated largely on the fringes. A disquieting development of recent times is the large-scale incursion of non-professional elements into mainline journalism.

Not only the editorial page but even the news columns have been invaded by aggressive campaigners assaulting the sensibility of readers looking for factual information and fair comment. Respectable newspapers have started leasing out space on the sports page to players to comment upon their own matches (and presumably get paid for it) and to commercial houses to “sponsor” the results of matches. There is a danger of this trend spreading to the general news pages like a bad habit in the same way as the permissive journalism practised by film magazines has corrupted the daily press.

When the Rajya Sabha witnessed turmoil over attempts by Congressmen, led by some Ministers, to browbeat the Chairman into withdrawing a ruling recently, one newspaper carried in its news columns a blow-by-blow account provided not by one of its correspondents who was in the press gallery but by a member of the House belonging to the Opposition. That the MP’s account was far more appealing than that of the journalists who covered the event is a sad commentary on the standards of reporting. It is not surprising that  journalists bred on handouts and briefings should be found wanting when they are required to describe events to which they are witnesses.

For the press to draw upon the services of active participants to report on events, be they sporting encounters or parliamentary interludes, is to abdicate its professional responsibility. When newspaper columns are turned over to politicians, lawyers, sportsmen and chartered accountants, what we have is anything but journalism. As a solution to professional problems it is a case of the remedy being worse than the disease.

Like any other profession – perhaps more than any other – journalism has among its practitioners persons with unrequited political ambitions. It will be unfair to expect them to give up their ambitions. But is it unreasonable  to ask that they desist from prostituting the profession in the pursuit of their personal goals? 

This question needs to be raised in the context of the conduct of Indian Express in the twilight days of Zail Singh’s presidency. While the whole truth behind the conspiratorial goings-on of the time is not available yet, and may never be known, the bits of information which have come to light clearly point to the newspaper’s involvement in illicit political activity even as it was  engaged in the legitimate professional task of running to earth evil-doers in high places.

The newspaper’s editorial exhortations to the President to act, which in the very nature of things was an incitement to destroy the Constitution which he was sworn to protect, defend and uphold, acquires an ominous ring in the light of subsequent revelations that the spiritual, temporal and journalistic advisers of its proprietor were all engaged, in their own ways, in furthering the cause. What happened was no aberration. It was an extreme manifestation of the poisonous consequences of the vulgarization of the press that has gone on unchecked over the years.

                                                          
                                                                         Patriot, Silver Jubilee Special Number, March 1988.