top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Debased Degrees

It seems that the credibility of India’s examination system is being tested not just by spectacular collapses like the NEET paper leak, but by smaller failures as well. The latest controversy involves an employee of the prestigious Savitribai Phule Pune University employee, who was accused of selling a fake degree certificate. According to allegations, an employee from the university’s finance and accounts department promised to provide a BCom degree certificate in exchange for money. In one...

Debased Degrees

It seems that the credibility of India’s examination system is being tested not just by spectacular collapses like the NEET paper leak, but by smaller failures as well. The latest controversy involves an employee of the prestigious Savitribai Phule Pune University employee, who was accused of selling a fake degree certificate. According to allegations, an employee from the university’s finance and accounts department promised to provide a BCom degree certificate in exchange for money. In one complaint, a rickshaw driver alleged that his son was offered a fake qualification for Rs. 3 lakh. In another instance, the university said the employee allegedly accepted Rs. 70,000 from a student for academic documents that later proved to be fabricated. While SPPU has suspended the employee, lodged a police complaint and initiated an inquiry, the episode, coming as it does in a climate where trust in educational systems is eroding, has already raised a larger concern: how secure are the institutions entrusted with certifying merit? This question has naturally acquired urgency after a series of examination controversies across India. The NEET-UG paper leak controversy, which shook the confidence of millions of medical aspirants, exposed the vulnerability of even the country’s most high-stakes entrance examinations. Students who spend years preparing for a single opportunity found themselves questioning whether the rules of competition were fair. Similar concerns have emerged periodically around recruitment examinations, university assessments and admission processes. An examination system works because candidates believe that everyone is competing on equal terms. The moment students suspect that money, influence or criminal networks can buy an advantage, the legitimacy of the entire process begins to weaken. A leaked question paper or a forged degree imposes a collective cost on millions who play by the rules. India’s education system has expanded dramatically, creating unprecedented demand for credentials. But the infrastructure of oversight has not always kept pace. Digital systems, encrypted question papers and verification technologies can help, but technology alone cannot substitute for institutional integrity. The weakest link is often the human being who exploits access for personal gain. Universities and examination bodies must therefore move beyond damage control. Independent audits, stronger internal checks, transparent investigations and swift punishment for offenders are essential if confidence is to be restored. The allegations at SPPU may ultimately prove to be an isolated case. But in the shadow of repeated examination controversies, it carries a symbolic weight far greater than one forged certificate. India’s education system is built on the promise that talent, not manipulation, determines success. That promise cannot be allowed to become another casualty of a growing culture of shortcuts.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page