According to a Pakistan daily here in Islamabad on Tuesday, India and Pakistan ought to keep the window open with the foreign secretaries meeting this month according to the new schedule so that “peace can win over terrorism”.
The editorial of a News International said that it was a “well-established reality that there are elements on both sides of the Indo-Pak border that will go to any length to prevent peace between the two countries”.
“It is essential these elements not be permitted to succeed, and this can happen only if the leaders of the South Asian neighbors refuse to allow their tactics to work,” it said.
“It is unfortunate then to see that the Pathankot attack has once more led to a crisis of trust, with New Delhi reverting quickly to some of the hostility and acrimonies we have seen in the past.”
The historic suspect among the two countries appeared to ease only after the separate visit of Sushma Swaraj, External affairs minister of India and then by the brief visit of prime minister Narendra Modi over the past few weeks.
“But it appears now that the bridges built are creaking again. While Pakistan had appeared to act on evidence from India by arresting the leader of the Jaish-e-Muhammad, blamed by New Delhi for the attacks, along with 20 other activists, it seems more is required.”
“These measures may, to some degree, have salvaged matters. But they have not completely blocked a new wave of hostility,” it added.
It said that the acrimony directed across the border by India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar is unsettling.
“Parrikar, responsible last year too for some highly offensive comments, has warned the ‘consequences will be seen’ in a year if Pakistan does not show action.”
“Permission has also been denied to the Pakistan SIT team to visit Pathankot, leaving it to ponder the option of visiting New Delhi, the line favoured by India, or else seek more evidence to be dispatched to it.”
It also said that India has denied travel documents to Hurriyat leaders and social activists who had hoped to visit Pakistan this week for a Kashmir Conference – which has now been cancelled.
“New laser fences, which act like radars, are also to be installed by the Indian BSF.
“But for now, windows should remain open. They must be kept ajar, with the foreign secretaries meeting this month as per a new schedule so that peace can win over terrorism,” it added.(IANS)
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)