Like many others, I believe the NEET-UG paper leak is a serious failure. The government deserves criticism. Dharmendra Pradhan, the Education Minister of India, must be questioned. He cannot shrug the responsibility and I do not think he is.
But is it fair to single him out?
Yesterday, I was talking to my friend - Kumar G Das - and he made some interesting points and arguments. He asked,
"Where does the issue stem from?"
The answer seemed obvious. It is because of weak systems. Poor oversight. Failure of governance. However, he pointed that a paper leak exists because there is both demand and supply.
Much of the public debate focuses on the supply side - those who exploited loopholes, leaked papers, facilitated cheating, or profited from the scam. The culprits must be identified, investigated and punished. If there is involvement of coaching centres, faculty members, middlemen, officials, they must not be spared and should face the strictest consequences.
But what about the demand side?
Who is buying leaked papers? Willing to pay lakhs for an unfair advantage? Who is encouraging a culture where success matters more than integrity? The uncomfortable truth is that some parents and students are active participants in this ecosystem. Without buyers, there would be no market for leaked papers. Without demand, in most cases, there is no supply.
I completely agree. His arguments made me think. No one is discussing and questioning the demand side!
At the same time and as mentioned earlier, it does not absolve the government. It is the responsibility of the government to build robust enough systems to prevent these things from happening. When an examination of this scale is compromised, the ministry cannot simply say that a few bad actors are responsible and move on.
But is accountability the same thing as resignation?
I do not think so.
If the Minister resigns or government takes any action due to the protest by a satirical online movement like CJP, a trending social media campaign, a group of Gen Z activists and some 'habitual and chronic protestors', we risk creating the wrong precedent. We know there are forces that mobilize and fund such groups. We have seen similar protest movements in Nepal and Bangladesh. The objective of these forces, in many cases, is to destabilize governments and ultimately gain influence or control.
Governments should act based on facts, investigations, evidence, and institutional processes, not on who can generate the loudest outrage online. If every institutional failure automatically demands the resignation of the person at the top, there will be no end to insane demands? It would open a hornet's nest.
If a major banking fraud happens despite multiple layers of regulation, should the RBI Governor resign? If there is a border infiltration, should the Army Chief resign? If a cricket match is abandoned due to a dangerous or unplayable pitch, should the BCCI President resign? If a stock market manipulation scam comes to light, should the SEBI Chairperson resign?
Leadership carries responsibility, but responsibility is not the same as sole culpability. Online or offline outrage cannot be a substitute for institutional processes. Public pressure is important in a democracy, but governance cannot be reduced to reacting to the loudest voices on social media or at Jantar Mantar (Kaikey in Ramayana had Kop Bhavan and modern day habitual protestors have Jantar Mantar!).
The objective should be justice, not symbolism.
Identify every individual involved in the leak. Punish corrupt officials. Shut down coaching centres found guilty. Debar students who knowingly participated. Hold parents accountable where evidence exists. Strengthen examination security. Fix the loopholes and the system. Increase transparency.
This MUST not happen again!
Dharmendra Pradhan is being questioned, and rightly so. He should be questioned. He should be held accountable. But if our entire response begins and ends with demanding one man's resignation, we may satisfy our anger without solving the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment