We have grown up learning two dictums of justice system: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. And “justice should not only be done, rather it should appear to have been done”.
Now look at the following questions:
Should we expect that the ongoing judicial inquiry into financial irregularities and embezzlement in AMU is going to be a milestone in reforming the administrative management of the higher education? When the Principal Accountant General (November 2009) could find all the irregularities and could state quite unambiguously, then why did the Justice Fakhruddin-A.H. Jung Committee failed so miserably? Why did not the Visitor ask the functionaries under scanner to proceed on leave till the inquiry runs? Will it bring chaos on the campus? If yes, then barring the VC, what is the problem in sending the other two highest functionaries (Finance Officer and Registrar) under scanner, on leave? Why did not the elaborate investigative-bureaucratic machinery of the Union government take care of the credentials (academic and financial) of the individuals empanelled as the AMU’s VC in April-May 2007? Why did the AMU EC and Court and the Union government ignore the allegations against the empanelled individual in his previous position/ institution? Why did it take so long for the government to understand the whole affair when ordinary people are able to understand it through the documents obtained under RTI? Is it because the whistle against such corruption was initially blown by someone whose credentials (moral as well as academic) are much more doubtful? Is there any truth behind the ‘rumours’ that even after more than a month of notification (5th Feb’10) of the reconstituted judicial inquiry, the two judges have not received even the abovementioned audit report? If yes, then what does it mean? To avoid a vertical indecisive divisions of opinions, why did not the government appoint 3 or 5 member inquiry committee; more so when the earlier two-member inquiry committee got divided vertically in opinion, and turned out to be fatally indecisive, and thereby delaying justice? Is it true that the two judges are more concerned about their perks etc, and less sincere about looking into the ‘incriminating’ files/documents? Already there are media reports about dirt in judiciary. Why does the VC pay frequent visit to the residence of the amicus curiae of the judicial inquiry? What is transpiring between the VC and the father of the amicus curiae? What role is being played by the people like Kamal Faruqui and Khwaja Shahid of Delhi? Why does the VC frequently meet them? Why do the self- righteous, highly enlightened, overseas alumni (particularly the sections of alumni based in USA) talk less of the corruption and more on other ‘trivial’ things? Have they grown up as another group of vested interests? Have these USA based NRIs developed multiple contradictory faces- one at the public/ working places in USA, and another in their private spaces? Why they are silent on the regressive and obnoxious practice of taking tainted, illegally recruited teachers in crucial positions of the AMU administration?
Given a consistent history of putting inquiry reports of irregularities (G.C. Chatterji Report, 1961 and Justice Mathew Report, 1998) under the carpet, it is but natural that objective and sincere sympathizers of the AMU would have doubts over any other exercise in sanitizing the affairs of AMU.
Why do some strange people visit my residence in Batla House, enquiring about me with my neighbours? Are they stooges of the tainted insiders of AMU.
Allah Hafiz
ZAFAR KHAN
H-104, Batla House, New Delhi-25
No comments:
Post a Comment