Guwahati: Runaway ULFA leader Anup Chetia alias Golap Baruah, extradited from Bangladesh, was on Wednesday presented before a Guwahati court, which remanded him in five-day CBI custody.
Chetia, who was lodged in a Bangladesh jail ever since his arrest in 1997, was brought to Guwahati on Wednesday morning aboard a special aircraft by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on transit remand.
He was taken straight from the airport to the CBI court amid tight security. The security personnel did not even allow waiting media persons to have a word with Chetia.
Some members of Chetia’s family – including his wife and son – and senior members of United Liberation Front of Assam’s pro-talks faction, however, managed to exchange a few words and greetings with the senior ULFA leader.
Chetia was extradited from Bangladesh to India on November 11 and brought to New Delhi. CBI officials took him in custody and were grilling him ever since.
“On November 12, the CBI arrested Chetia regarding a murder case registered in Golaghat district in 1986. CBI officials today demanded 14-day custody of Chetia. After hearing us, the magistrate remanded Chetia in five-day CBI custody,” said Chetia’s counsel Bijan Mahajan.
Mahajan said the court asked CBI officials to provide medical assistance to Chetia, apart from good food while in custody.
“The court also ordered for health check-up of Chetia after every 24 hours and submission of a report to this effect,” Mahajan said, adding the CBI was directed to allow Chetia’s counsel and family members to meet him.
Some members of the pro-talks ULFA faction – engaged in peace talks with the government of India since 2010 – later told the media that Chetia was fine.
Chetia’s wife Monika Baruah Chetia told journalists that he did not recognise her at first. “I am very happy. Finally the wait is over and I wish the government of India will ensure his release so that the talks could go ahead,” she said.
Heavy security was deployed in the court and barricades put up in the premises in order to thwart people from reaching near Chetia or raising pro-ULFA slogans, as was done when ULFA chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa was presented before a court in 2009.
Chetia was first arrested in 1991 but was released on his assurance that he would bring other ULFA leaders to the negotiating table.
However, he fled the country. He was arrested by Bangladesh police in December 1997 for entering the country on fake documents, possessing illegal foreign currency, firearms and a satellite phone.
Both China and India started building their national education systems under comparable conditions in the late 1940s. Different policies and historical circumstances have, however, led them to different educational outcomes, with China outperforming India not just in terms of its percentage of literate population and enrollment rates at all levels of education, but also in terms of number of world-class institutions in higher education, and greater research output.
The roots of China’s successful education system date back to the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), which unintentionally expanded access to the primary education through democratising the schooling system, which was previously elitist in character, thus addressing the problem of mass illiteracy.
In contrast, India continued to focus on its higher education system since independence and only realised the importance of basic education in 1986, keeping it behind China and many other countries in Asia in educational development. In terms of enrollment, China reached a 100 percent gross enrollment rate (GER) in its primary education in 1985, whereas, India attained that level only in 2000.
In terms of secondary school enrollment, India and China both started at the similar rates in 1985, with about 40 percent of their population enrolled in secondary schools. However, due to a wider base of primary school students, the rate of increase in China has been much faster than in India, with 99 percent secondary enrollment rate in China and 79 percent in India in 2017.
India is closing in on the Chinese rate in terms of access to education, but on the literacy level front, there is a huge gap in the percentage of literate populations in the two countries. In the age group of 15-24 years, India scores 104th rank on literacy and numeracy indicator, compared to China’s 40th rank.
The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses after every three years the domain knowledge of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, science and finance, revealed that students in China performed above the OECD average in 2015. Moreover, one in four students in China are top performers in mathematics, having an ability to formulate complex situations mathematically. Further, China outperforms all the other participating countries in financial literacy, by having a high ability to analyse complex finance products. For India, the comparable data is not available as it was not a participating country in PISA 2015.
However, in India, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2017 provides data for rural youth, aged 14-18, with respect to their abilities to lead productive lives as adults. According to this survey, only about half of the 14-year-old children in the sample could read English sentences, and more than half of the students surveyed could not do basic arithmetic operations, like division. For basic financial calculations, such as managing a budget or making a purchase decision, less than two-thirds could do the correct calculations.
With regard to the higher education system, both India and China dominate the number of tertiary degree holders because of their large population size, but when it comes to the percentage of the population holding tertiary degrees, only about 10 per cent and 8 per cent of the population possess university degrees in China and India, respectively. By contrast, in Japan, almost 50 per cent of the population holds a tertiary degree, and in the United States, 31 per cent of the population hold a tertiary degree.
In terms of the international recognition of universities, the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranking for 2019 places seven of the China’s universities in the top 200, compared to none for India. The global university rankings, which are based on various performance metrices, pertaining to teaching, research, citations, international outlook and industrial income, shows progress for several of China’s low-ranked universities, largely driven by improvements in its citations.
In fact, the Tsinghua University has overtaken the National University of Singapore (NUS) to become the best university in Asia due to improvements in its citations, institutional income and increased share of international staff, students and co-authored publications.
While India has progressed in terms of massification of education, there is still a lot which needs to be done when it comes to catching up with the China’s educational outcomes. China’s early start in strengthening its primary and secondary education systems has given it an edge over India in terms of higher education. Moreover, Chinese government strategies are designed in line with the criterion used in major world university rankings, especially emphasis is on the two factors which weigh heavily in the rankings — publications and international students.
The relentless publications drive, which is very evident in China, is weak in India and has led to a growing gap in the number of publications contributed by the two countries. Further, China enrolled about 292,611 foreign students in 2011 from 194 countries, while India currently only has 46,144 foreign students enrolled in its higher education institutions, coming from 166 countries. The large number of international enrollments in China is a reflection of its state policies granting high scholarships to foreign students.
To catch up with China, India needs to lay emphasis on improving its educational outcomes. Massification drive for education has helped India raise its student enrollments, but a lot needs to be done when it comes to global recognition for its universities. Further, it needs to focus on building the foundation skills which are acquired by students at the school age, poor fundamental skills flow through the student life, affecting adversely the quality of education system. (IANS)