Welcome Letter To Newly Elected Board Members: Fill & Download for Free

This an historical narrative I wrote regarding why an elementary school currently under construction in Lancaster, PA should not be named after James Buchanan. It’s a bit lengthy and I apologize for that. I have the source material if anyone is interested.Truth, Symbol, and Representation: Buchanan’s LegacyIt is critical to a society’s legitimacy that when a decision is made with respect to honoring the life of a person whether it be accomplished through the establishment of a national holiday, a memorial in the form of a monument, or in the naming of some place; that person is deserving of this honor.President Buchanan’s legacy does not conform to the standards one should consider when naming a public institution particularly one dedicated to preparing young people for citizenship in this country. Buchanan’s support of slaveholding interests in the South, and his abnegation of responsibilities to provide moral leadership during the nation’s gravest constitutional crisis is the subject matter of this article.Buchanan’s Alignment with the SouthIt was John Randolph, a member of Congress from Virginia who coined the term “Doughface”. The original meaning referred to a theatrical mask made out of dough. The word was repurposed to describe politicians who are pliable and moldable: who will align themselves with a particular political, economic, or social agenda. Doughfaces were used in various ways to exploit the crisis which was unfolding between North and South – the primary issue being the expansion of slavery into the Territories and Free States. Randolph a southerner disdainfully described them as “weak men, timid men, half-baked men” willing to be led about by a stronger mind and will. One of these men he was referring to would soon become the 15th President of the United States, James Buchanan.Buchanan’s sympathies with the South and her feudal society were undoubtedly influenced by his close friendship with William King a senator from Alabama. King’s family held sway over a dominion which included thousands of acres dedicated to the cultivation of cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane. Over 500 slaves toiled away on this vast tract of land.Buchanan and King were inseparable companions. They shared the same domicile in the nation’s capital for 15 years until King’s death in 1853. They were often jokingly referred to as the “Siamese Twins”. Andrew Jackson typically more blunt in all things called them "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy".In the years spent living together King created fanciful images about what it was like to live in the Deep South. Buchanan went so far as to emulate some of King’s mannerisms.Buchanan’s CampaignBy the early 1850’s Buchanan’s views about slavery and people of African descent were fully developed and well known to the South. The stakes were high. So much so that Senator James Mason of Virginia wrote if Buchanan loses the South we “should not pause but proceed at once to immediate, absolute and eternal separation.”Slavery was the law of the land Buchanan insisted. The Constitution itself protected the institution of slavery not just in the South but all of the federal territories. This became a central theme in 1856 during Buchanan’s presidential run.Buchanan attempted to draw northerners into his fold as well. He played on the fears and prejudices of the rapidly growing class of workers in the North that were dependent on factory owners for wages in exchange for their labor. If the Negro gained his freedom Buchanan argued he would be, “turned loose to compete with the white man for jobs”. The few stump speeches he made were laden with fear mongering rhetoric. “If elected I have no intention of elevating the African race to compete equally with the White man.”His victory came about because he won all of the Southern and border slave states with exception of Maryland. However he captured only four of fourteen Northern states barely winning his own, Pennsylvania. His victory reflected the fact that the nation was becoming increasingly more divided over the issue of slavery particularly its expansion into newly formed states and western territories.Southerners breathed a cautionary sigh of relief. “Mr. Buchanan and the Northern Democrats are dependent on the South” a Virginia judge exclaimed. “If we can succeed in Kansas (make it a slave state), keep down the Tariff, shake off our commercial dependence on the North and add a little more slave territory, we may yet live free men under the Stars and Stripes.”Dred ScottDred Scott was a slave owned by Peter Blow. The Blow family with their five slaves in tow moved to St. Louis and opened up a boarding house. Short on funds they sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army. Emerson died and his widow inherited Scott. During that period Scott had been courting Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by Major Lawrence Taliaferro. With Taliaferro’s permission they married. Harriet gave birth to two daughters.Scott unhappy with the way he was treated and yearning for a new form of life free to engage in his own pursuits offered the widow Emerson $300, about $8,000 in today’s money, in order to purchase his and his families freedom. She rejected his offer. For over 3 years she had been leasing the Scotts out and preferred this steady flow of rental income over a one shot payoff.Unable to buy his freedom Scott turned to an abolitionist lawyer willing to work pro bono. The lawyer filed what was known as a “freedom suit”. The year was 1846. Slaves residing in Free States and Free Territories for over four years could sue for their freedom. Usually they prevailed in these suits. Scott was not so fortunate. Petty questions about who had legitimate title to him and his family as well as other technicalities were batted around in the lower courts for eleven long years. In 1853, Scott again sued for his freedom; this time under federal law. By that time the widow Emerson had moved to Massachusetts. Fed up with all the legal issues she transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, John Sanford. Finally in 1856 Scott’s freedom suit was placed on the Supreme Court’s docket.Dred Scott v. SanfordThe case was stacked against Scott from the get go. Chief Justice Taney now 80 years old and in failing health was determined to stamp his imprimatur on the issue of slavery. For the old warrior and tireless defender of the South the Dred Scott case was his last chance. In a letter to Buchanan he lamented the fact that “Our own southern countrymen are in great danger as the knife of the assassins (abolitionists) is at their throat.” The Court was dominated by five Southern justices. Four of them were slave owners.Buchanan now less than a month away from his inauguration agreed. He thought that a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court would unify the country. Buchanan behind the scenes worked tirelessly to convince the Democratic justices to side with the Southern justices in favor of Sanford. He managed to convince his friend, Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, also from Pennsylvania to join the southern majority. A president elects’ interference in a case held in any court let alone the Supreme Court was unprecedented in American history.The DecisionScott’s petition to gain his freedom was denied. The decision, 7-2 was rendered two days after Buchanan was sworn into office.Writing for the majority Taney asked: “The question is simply this: “Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?” Taney’s answer: “We think ... that [Black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”In short: Slaves can never obtain citizenship. Therefore Scott’s suit had no merit.The Chief Justice might have stopped there but he couldn’t resist taking a breathtaking leap over a chasm which would lead to the Civil War. Taney argued that residence in Free Territories or Free states did not entitle slaves to freedom. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence had already addressed the issues of slavery. Therefore any attempts by Congress or the States to enact laws favorable to people enslaved were null and void. The intent of this ruling was to extend and perpetuate slavery.The scheme to unify the nation by legitimizing slavery in perpetuity was perhaps the grossest political miscalculation in the history of this country. Buchanan did not reckon that peace at any cost would as it finally did, fail. He did not have the moral capacity to see as Abraham Lincoln did that…”this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free”.Buchanan’s Final State of the Union AddressThe Union is threatened with destruction. Who is to blame? Buchanan asks. It is the “Northern people” -- abolitionists who have relentlessly badgered the South over the issue of slavery. These instigators are responsible for inspiring “vague notions of freedom in the slave population”. Southern families are now exposed to the possibility of open warfare with slaves. “Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children before morning” he opines.But there is a solution to this vexing problem. Leave the South alone and “be permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way”.In probably the only State of the Union address that specifically attacks the motives of an incoming president, Buchanan blames Lincoln for the South’s current state of agitation. He sternly warns that Lincoln is set to “invade (the South’s) constitutional rights” despite the fact that the Supreme Court has “solemnly decided that slaves are property”.Further on in his speech he defends the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This law forced citizens to assist in the capture of runaway slaves. Any person who interfered with the rendition effort could be fined up to $1,000 (over $30,000 in 2020 terms) and six months in jail. Buchanan: “The validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity.” Northerners listening to this speech must have snorted since thousands of them were risking all in their efforts to thwart bounty hunters and slave owners in their attempts to recapture their property. It was a farce to claim that unanimity prevailed.In one of the most astonishing statements ever made in any State of the Union Address, Buchanan asks the question what if one party (the South) feels that its domestic security is compromised by the North’s bad faith in upholding the Constitution? “In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union.” The South was in agreement. By February 1861, seven Southern states had seceded.Concluding RemarksThe truth can only be sustained and acted upon in communities with shared convictions and narratives. It is not possible to reconcile the Founding Fathers ideals about our Republic: that all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness while at the same time justify the enslavement of millions of people. The new elementary school should be named after someone who believes in the Founding Fathers ideals of our Republic.If a particularly inquisitive student asked the following question: ‘Why is our school named after this man James Buchanan’? Would a competent educator be available to extend her explanation beyond the simple fact that, ‘He was a president of our country and he called Lancaster his home’?This concludes the narrative which supports the argument that the new elementary school under construction should not be named after James Buchanan.EpilogueBuchanan Retires to LancasterWar Between the States broke out in April 1861. Without much fanfare Buchanan retired to his home in Lancaster. He did not return to a hero’s welcome. Many in the North considered him a traitor. He was branded an “appeaser of the South and a lover of slavery”. His portrait was vandalized in the Capitol and finally was removed. Posters depicting his likeness with captions such as "Judas" and “Traitor” superimposed on his forehead sprung up everywhere. Some depicted him with his neck in a hangman's noose. The Civil War was frequently referred to as “Buchanan’s War”. He was publicly accused of colluding with the South after the Civil War began. He was considered a social pariah in his own community.He wrote a book which defended his actions as president. It was published one year after the war ended and was largely ignored by the public. He attempted to portray his actions to save the Union as heroic. However the book was largely a condemnation of Lincoln, the Republican Party, and abolitionists. He blamed all three for the Civil War. He weakly concluded “that he had done his best to save the Union”.Buchanan receded from public life after publication of his book. Retreating into the protective confines of his mansion he admitted only a small contingent of loyal friends. His health began to fail. One of his last comments in a letter to a friend was, ““History will vindicate my memory from every unjust aspersion.” He died at his beloved mansion named “Wheatland” June 1, 1868.The historian Jean Baker wrote, “Buchanan's failing during the crisis over the Union was not inactivity, but rather his partiality for the South, a favoritism that bordered on disloyalty in an officer pledged to defend all the United States. He was that most dangerous of chief executives, a stubborn, mistaken ideologue whose principles held no room for compromise.His experience in government had only rendered him too self-confident to consider other views. In his betrayal of the national trust, Buchanan came closer to committing treason than any other president in American history.”What Happened to Dred ScottThe ownership of Dred Scott is a convoluted tale. Following the ruling by the Supreme Court, the new owners who lived in Massachusetts quickly deeded the Scott family to Taylor Blow. The irony here is that the Blow family had originally owned Scott as far back as 1818. Blows children had turned against slavery. They immediately manumitted Scott and his family on May 26, 1857.Scott worked as a porter in a St. Louis hotel. He was a popular and admired figure. His case before the Supreme Court was a cause célèbre. His freedom was short-lived; he died from tuberculosis in September 1858. He was survived by his wife and his two daughters.

Once the epicentre of India’s freedom struggle and the alma mater of three prime ministers, two vice-presidents and a president of India as well as of authors, artistes and senior bureaucrats, this 131-year-old university has experienced a steady descent into a whirpool of student violence, corruption, caste politics, faculty recruitment scams and lawlessness – Autar NehruAU facts fileEstb. 1887Campus area: 232 acres (four campuses)Budget 2017-18: Rs.417.6 croreNo. of students: 25,000No. faculty: 317Faculties: Arts, Science, Commerce & LawInstitutes/centres: Institute of Inter-disciplinary Studies, National Centre for Experimental Mineralogy & Petrology, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Sciences Institute, Centre for Behavioural & Cognitive Science, Centre for Women’s Studies, Institute of Gandhian Thought & Peace Studies, Design Innovation Centre, Institute of Professional StudiesAffiliated colleges: 10Tuition fees (per year): Rs.1,200-1,500Hostels: Nine men’s and six women’s hostels. Board & lodging: Rs.13,000-14,000 per yearFamous alumniPoliticians: Motilal Nehru, Congress party president; Shankar Dayal Sharma, President of India; Chandra Shekhar & V. P. Singh, prime ministers; Murli Manohar Joshi & Arjun Singh, Union HRD ministers; N.D. Tiwari, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh; Surya Bahadur Thapa, Prime Minister of NepalPoets/Writers: Firaq Gorakhpuri, Harivansh Rai Bachchan, Mrinal PandeLaw: Chief Justices of India Mohammad Hidayatullah, Kamal Narain Singh, V.N. Khare, J.S. Khare; Supreme Court lawyers Shanti & Prashant BhushanThe fourth oldest modern university of India (established in 1887 shortly after the Presidency universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were decreed in 1857), Allahabad University (AU), once known as the Oxford of the East for its academic excellence and vibrant institutional culture, is struggling to regain its past glory.The alma mater of three former prime ministers (Gulzari Lal Nanda, Chandra Shekhar and V.P. Singh), one president, two vice presidents, well-known authors, artistes and senior bureaucrats (see box p.82), this 131-year-old varsity sited in the historic city of Allahabad (pop.1.21 million) — ill-advisedly being renamed Prayagraj by the state BJP government headed by prelate-turned-chief minister Yogi Adityanath — which was an epicentre of India’s freedom struggle and the hometown of its first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, has experienced a steep fall of reputation. Once the showpiece university of the Hindi heartland state of Uttar Pradesh (UP, pop.220 million), over the past four decades AU’s academic landscape has been marred by its steady descent into a whirlpool of student violence, corruption, caste politics, faculty recruitment scams and lawlessness.In the latest National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2018 of the Union human resource development (HRD) ministry, AU is ranked a dismal #68 behind several newly promoted private universities. Thirteen years ago to enable its upliftment, AU was conferred Central university status through a special University of Allahabad Act, 2005 passed by Parliament. But this initiative has failed to rejuvenate or revive this once widely admired institution of higher learning.On June 6, an FIR (first information report) was registered by the UP police against 400 AU students following violent protests on campus over the administration’s decision to evict 4,000 of them from its 20 hostels for the summer break, and reallot hostel rooms in the new academic year beginning August. According to university spokespersons, a large number of graduated students have been illegally occupying the hostels with some renting their rooms to third parties, and the varsity’s hostels had become hubs of criminal and political activity. Following student violence, the vice chancellor’s office in the iconic Darbhanga Hall has been fortified and special iron grilled gates constructed near the gateway to prevent vandalism.“Some hostels were in the possession of criminals and we obtained an order from the Allahabad high court to forcibly vacate unauthorised personnel from the university’s hostels. The police was implementing the court order when students abetted by anti-social elements, began vandalising university property and then the city,” says Prof. Rattan Lal Hangloo, appointed the university’s 53rd vice chancellor in December 2015 by the newly-elected BJP/NDA government, which was voted to power at the Centre the previous year.An alumnus of Kashmir and Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru universities and former professor of history at Hyderabad Central University who won wide acclaim for his competent leadership of the University of Kalyani, Nadia (West Bengal), Hangloo was appointed VC with a specific brief to depoliticise and decriminalise the campus and rejuvenate academic and research activities on AU’s four campuses which host 25,000 students. Soon after he took charge, the “pathetic state of the university” prompted him to write an “SOS letter” to then President Pranab Mukherjee, visitor of AU and ex officio chancellor of all Central universities. In the letter dated December 15, 2016, Hangloo lamented “complete policy paralysis with no quality academic contribution and very poor infrastructure to match the stature of a Central university”.“I had heard many great things about Allahabad University and was honoured to be appointed vice chancellor,” recalls Hangloo. “But soon after I assumed office in 2015, my perceptions about this once-great institution were shattered. There was no academic environment; faculty and employees were fearful and students demotivated. Some of the university’s buildings and hostels were illegally occupied by graduates and outsiders. Some staff in administrative positions were involved in brazen corruption and favouritism. The appointment of a succession of ill-qualified and incompetent vice chancellors had resulted in the near collapse of AU. At the time, I believed it was my duty to write to the President to inform him about the corruption and mismanagement that was rife in this ancient seat of learning. Nevertheless over the past three years despite severe opposition by vested interests, I have initiated several overdue reforms including eviction of unauthorised personnel from student hostels, renovation of academic facilities, and restarting the process of recruiting faculty after a gap of 22 years. But inevitably, I have to routinely fight allegations of mismanagement and corruption against me,” says Hangloo.Reportedly irked by Hangloo’s direct letter of complaint to the President and chancellor of the university by-passing the ministry, in October 2016 the HRD ministry issued a show-cause notice to Hangloo to explain several charges of financial irregularities against him. In response, Hangloo sent three volumes of replies with explanations and evidence. His direct confrontation with the HRD ministry, which has reportedly won over Union HRD minister Prakash Javadekar, has also won him the approval and support of the silent majority in the university and citizenry of Allahabad.Satish Agarwal, a former AU student union president and a professed Lohiate (adherent of the caste-based socialism propounded by the late freedom fighter Ram Manohar Lohia (1910-1967)), who now works in the UP state legal cell of the BJP, believes Hangloo deserves the support of all right-thinking people as he has undertaken a determined drive to clean the Augean stables of AU. “The unholy alliance of corrupt bureaucracy, academicians, politicians and businessmen has cost the university dear and every right-thinking individual in Allahabad and Uttar Pradesh should welcome Prof. Hangloo as a messiah. He has already begun the process of reform and upgradation and should be fully supported in his efforts to revive this prestigious institution,” says Agarwal.Sprawled across four campuses with an aggregate land area of 232 acres distinguished by heritage buildings designed in the Indo-Saracenic style and green lawns, AU was established on September 23, 1887 as the Muir Central College, named after Sir William Muir, Lt. Governor of the United Provinces. Subsequently, it transformed into the Allahabad Central University after its incorporation Act was passed in 1887 and it was granted degree awarding powers. In 1904, the Indian Universities Act was legislated which limited the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad University to the United Provinces of Agra and Awadh, the Central Provinces including Berar, Ajmer, Mewar and most of the states of Rajputana and Central India Agencies.Between 1887-1927, AU affiliated 38 colleges in its jurisdictional area. After independence, the university accepted affiliation applications of several arts, commerce, science, and law colleges. Currently, it has 10 colleges with an aggregate enrolment of 31,450 students and 1,279 teachers, affiliated with it.The location of AU in the United Provinces (renamed Uttar Pradesh after independence), the crucible of Indian politics and the freedom movement, ensured that the university occupied pride of place in pre-independence India, and most importantly, provided intellectual stimulus for the country’s freedom struggle. The entrance leading to the university’s main campus boasts a memorial dedicated to student leader Lal Padmadhar Singh, who was shot dead in the Quit India uprising of 1942. Moreover, Anand Bhavan — the home of Congress stalwart Motilal Nehru, Congress president in 1919-20 and 1928-29 and father of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister — is a short walk from AU’s main campus.Therefore unsurprisingly AU’s distinguished alumni include former president Shankar Dayal Sharma, former prime ministers V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar and Gulzari Lal Nanda, Bharat Ratna Madan Mohan Malviya, 11 chief ministers of several Indian states including G.B. Pant, H.N. Bahuguna, N.D. Tiwari and Arjun Singh. Legal luminaries include several chief justices of India — Ranganath Mishra, J.S. Verma, R.H. Pathak, M.H. Beg and K.N. Singh. Dubbed a nursery of bureaucrats, AU has also shaped generations of senior secretaries of the government of India“Allahabad University was once renowned for its academic excellence, brilliant faculty and bright students driven by strong desire to contribute to India’s national development effort. Right until the early 1980s, the academic culture was so competitive that university hostels competed in terms of the number of top civil servants they produced. Faculty would offer free extra classes to students preparing for the civil services exam. Unfortunately, this academic culture has since disappeared and in recent years, the university has acquired a notorious reputation for corruption, student violence and lawlessness,” admits Dr. Ram Sevak Dubey, president of the Allahabad University Teachers Association (AUTA) and head of the university’s Sanskrit faculty.The consensus of informed opinion within AU is that this formerly stellar university’s fall from grace began in the 1970s with the state government incrementally tightening its grip over the university’s administration, resulting in politicisation of the campus and nepotism in faculty appointments. Moreover, with private investment in industry discouraged in the heady years of Indian socialism as practised by Congress governments at the Centre and in Lucknow, the university was starved of funding for infrastructure expansion to meet growing student enrolments. With populist politics freezing students’ tuition fees, faculty recruitment was also frozen with some vacancies unfilled for over 30 years.According to knowledgeable monitors of UP politics, the descent of the state into a quagmire of casteism, corruption, political horse-trading and lawlessness in the 1970s was accelerated after the Mandal Commission’s report recommending reservation of 27 percent of seats for ‘other backward castes’ in higher education and faculty recruitment was passed by Parliament, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1990. These political initiatives which led to the rise of UP’s caste-based Bahujan Samaj Party led by former school teacher Mayawati, and Samajwadi Party led by former wrestler Mulayam Singh Yadav, opened a Pandora’s box of caste antagonisms and politics whose viruses have divided the students body and faculty and bedeviled academic life.“The University of Allahabad began its decline during Congress rule as (prime minister) Indira Gandhi turned her party into an apparatus of nepotism and corruption. The decline accelerated during the regimes of the BSP and the SP, the former indifferent to student life, and the latter actively engaged in criminal activity. After decades of neglect, many students reposed their hopes in the Modi government and made him the vehicle of their future aspirations. As the aspirations of the students turn rapidly to dust, it is crucial to remember that the University of Allahabad is not JNU. It is bigger and more significant in regional politics. Damage done to students’ lives here will have reverberations elsewhere,” writes Pankaj Singh, an alum of AU and currently research scholar at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University,However, with the virus of caste-based antagonisms and controversies about reservation quotas having permeated the campus, by end-1990s AU was in a shambles and the idea of bailing out the university by converting it from a state to Central university began gaining ground. The argument in favour was that Central university status would free the institution from the strangulating control of the state government and rustic politicians, and provide greater funding.Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, an alum of AU and Union HRD minister in the BJP-led NDA government (1999-2004), introduced the University of Allahabad Bill, 2004 in Parliament to confer Central university status on it. However, Joshi’s Bill was defeated in the Rajya Sabha in February 2004, because of stiff opposition from the Congress and Samajwadi parties. This failure cost Joshi, who also taught at AU for nearly four decades as physics professor, the 2004 Lok Sabha election from the Allahabad parliamentary seat after AU teachers aggressively campaigned against him.However, his successor in Shastri Bhavan, Arjun Singh, Union HRD minister in the UPA-I government and also an AU alum, successfully piloted the University of Allahabad Bill, 2005 through Parliament. On June 24, 2005, AU was conferred Central university status and simultaneously designated an Institute of National Importance.“In the new millennium, it had become painfully apparent that the stategovernment didn’t have the resources to overhaul Allahabad University which needed major funds infusion. At the time, the state government’s annual grant to AU was a mere Rs.40 crore — clearly insufficient for infrastructure and academic upgradation. The university required an annual grant of ten times that amount. Hence the campaign for Central university status,” recalls Harsh Kumar, professor in the department of ancient history, culture and anthropology.With the conferment of Central university status on AU in 2005, the annual grant to the university did improve substantially, but it also provoked outrageous corruption by a succession of mediocre vice chancellors appointed on other than merit considerations. In particular, the power of vice chancellors to recruit faculty and award contracts for expansion and maintenance of the varsity’s sprawling 232-acre campus resulted in intense politicking for the post.“Unfortunately AU has had a string of incompetent VCs. Before the university was conferred Central status, VC Chuni Lal Khetrpal ensured that he benefited personally, rather than the university. Prof. Rajen Harshe who succeeded him messed up the university further by sanctioning construction of buildings without any budgetary provision. The buildings commissioned by him and due to be handed over to the university in 2009, have not been completed even now,” says Hangloo.Following widespread public outrage and demand from the faculty, in 2010 President Pratibha Patil constituted a search committee headed by R.A. Mashelkar, former director general of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, to select a new vice chancellor. In January 2011, the search committee recommended distinguished academic Dr. A.K. Singh, an alum of IIT-Kanpur, Florida State, Hawaii, and Columbia universities with over two decades of admin and teaching experience in IIT-Bombay, who was duly appointed VC in 2011.However by then, a deep-rooted culture of corruption, orthodoxy, mediocrity and favouritism had permeated the university dividing faculty, students and non-academic staff on the lines of caste, community and political ideology. With every administrative and academic reform introduced by Singh sabotaged by powerful caste and community groups opposed to each other, following an indefinite strike called by the university’s non-teaching staff and protests by students against the deteriorating academic environment, Dr. Singh resigned his office in July 2014. After his departure, two pro-tem vice chancellors were appointed who further messed up things at the university.Comments Hangloo, who was appointed vice chancellor in December 2015: “These were the circumstances when I took charge. Therefore, I felt it was my first duty to do due diligence and inform the President, who is also our chancellor, of the corruption and mismanagement of my predecessors. For instance, I informed him that Rs.35 crore was owed to the university from teachers, non-teaching staff and others who had been doled out generous loans, and that the BA.LLB course was being run for more than eight years without permission of the Bar Council of India.”Inevitably, as soon as Hangloo began the process of reforming and overhauling AU’s administration, groups of teachers, students and local vested interests who had forced his predecessor Dr. Singh to resign, began to resist. A large number of complaints ranging from corruption to harassment of SC/ST students were filed against him with the HRD ministry, and planted in the media.Within AU’s beleaguered faculty, there’s widespread agreement that a critical faculty shortage is crippling this vintage university. Currently, there is a 50 percent teacher shortage with 528 sanctioned faculty posts vacant. Unsurprisingly, 445 full-time faculty is not equal to the task of tutoring 25,000-plus students in a higher education institution in which the teacher-pupil ratio has risen to 1:51 as against the UGC prescribed norm of 1:25.There are too many vested and corrupt interests inside and outside the university who sabotage every recruitment initiative because their favourites are not shortlisted. As soon as any recruitment process begins, there are disputes about the composition of selection committees and individuals who are not shortlisted, file cases and get stay orders from the courts. The shortage of faculty has crippled teaching, and left academics with no time for research. It’s impossible for professors to work on research and consulting projects after teaching all day. And insufficiency of research papers is a major cause for our low NIRF ranking,” says Prof. A.R. Siddiqui, an alumnus of AU, vice president of the Allahabad University Teachers Association (AUTA) and NIRF nodal officer and professor in the faculty of geography.With narrow-minded caste, community and identity politics, which has become the leitmotif of Uttar Pradesh politics since the 1990s spilling over into university campuses, AU has become a hotbed of political ferment. National and regional parties such as the BJP, Congress, BSP and SP have infiltrated the campus, and through their apparatchiks, many of whom are illegally residing in the varsity’s hostels, incite frequent protests and often violent agitations. Even though student union elections were suspended from 2005-2012 because of the brutal murder of a student on campus, and since then student unions have been strictly circumscribed, the AU campus remains a hotbed of politically charged student activism. For the past five years, the Samajwadi Party’s student wing, the Samajwadi Chhatra Sabha (SCS) has been ruling the student union. In 2017, AUSU president, Avinsih Yadav was under investigation for hiring an impersonator to write his exams.“Student protests and agitations on the smallest pretext are normative in AU. But much of the violence is prompted and abetted by criminal elements not registered in AU and illegal hostel residents. Though student union members are not part of any administrative or academic committee, elections are bitterly fought. I believe Samajwadi Party chief and former UP chief minister Akhilesh Yadav is responsible for introducing caste politics and polarising the campus,” says Kunwar Sahib Singh, a student leader who contested unsuccessfully for the post of president in the AU student union election this year and is a second year English research scholar.Academic standards and learning outcomes have also plunged in AU over the past three decades because the student profile of the varsity has changed drastically with a large number of students from villages in neighbouring Bundelkhand and Terai, and backward states such as Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand being admitted. As a Central university, AU is obliged to reserve 49 percent of seats for SC, ST and OBC students who continue to receive low grade primary-secondary education, especially in rural schools.“Once upon a time, AU attracted bright and best students from across the country. But over the past few decades, large contingents of our students are from small towns and villages in UP and neighbouring states admitted under affirmative action. Poor learning outcomes in primary-secondaries in rural UP and neighbouring states have imposed great stress on our faculty to maintain academic standards,” says Prof. Jagadamba Singh, dean of AU’s science faculty.Politicisation of AU and admission of half the annual students intake under the affirmative action policy of the Central government coupled with the omnipresent threat of violent student protests have forced tuition fees to be frozen at Rs.1,200-1,500 for over two decades, and cannot be raised. Therefore, tuition fees contribute a mere 1 percent of the university’s annual budget of Rs.446 crore, leaving AU abjectly dependent on grants of the Union government to fund infrastructure expansion, teacher recruitment and academic innovations.Inevitably, AU’s 20 hostels which house 4,000 students are in dilapidated condition with water seepages and leaking roofs being normative. Residential accommodation is free-of-charge for SC/ST students while others have to pay a nominal Rs.13,000 per year for double sharing and Rs.14,000 for single rooms as rent. Mercifully, the university’s Indo-Saracenic heritage buildings have been recently refurbished and several new buildings are also mushrooming, as per a new development plan. Spread across four sites within a radius of 7 km in the city — Senate area, MCC, Chauhan Lines, and Beli Farm — the AU campus hosts well-equipped science labs and a well-stocked library. However, wi-fi and state-of-the-art IT technologies are in scarce use.Miraculously, despite frequent disruptions of academic life rooted in rock-bottom tuition fees, persistent political interference, and widespread favouritism and nepotism in faculty recruitment, a few islands of academic excellence have survived in this vintage university. “AU continues to host the country’s best basic sciences and law faculties. We receive 200 admission applications per seat in our basic sciences faculty and the annual admissions rush into our botany school headed by renowned botanist Prof. N.B. Singh is particularly heavy. Our law school has also retained its lustre. An estimated 90 percent of UP Public Service Commission (PCB) and judicial officers are graduates of the university’s law faculty,” says Prof. Harsh Kumar, who also doubles as the university’s public relations officer.Yet an indicator of the ivory tower existence of this historic university is that it didn’t have a placement cell for graduates until last year. With most graduates busy writing UPSC entrance and state government exams for government jobs, a placement cell for entry into private sector companies was unnecessary. “It has been a challenge to change the mindset of students about corporate jobs as AU has a reputation for producing civil servants and bureaucrats. But with regular workshops, we are creating awareness about careers beyond the government and public sector where jobs are becoming scarce. Last year for the first time, private companies such as Svatantra Microfinance Pvt. Ltd and NGOs such as Azim Premji Foundation hired AU graduates,” says Shaswat, an alumnus of Sam Higginbotham University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Allahabad and AU’s newly appointed placement officer.To his credit, since he was appointed vice chancellor in 2015 Hangloo has undertaken overdue initiatives to modernise this ancient institution of higher learning. Among them: introducing an online admissions process, digitalising and modernising the university’s financial system to ensure transparency, and sanctioning the construction of three new hostels. Moreover last year, AU introduced several postgrad skills diploma programmes and signed collaboration partnerships with universities in Germany and America. Now AU is a member of the Joint DBT-Heidelberg University Graduate Programme on Big Data Research together with IIT-Madras, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Guwahati, and Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.“I believe it’s entirely possible for AU to regain its past glory by weeding out corrupt practices from campus politics, introducing contemporary study programmes, upgrading infrastructure, cleansing the university of anti-social elements and recruiting competent faculty. But for these initiatives to succeed a mindset change in the university’s teachers and student communities is a prerequisite. A corruption-free and impartial administration which resists unwarranted political interference supported by the silent majority within the student community and faculty can repair and restore the once-great academic reputation of AU,” says Hangloo.Once the crucible and epicentre of India’s successful freedom struggle against foreign rule and a widely admired centre of excellence of higher education, Allahabad University is struggling to survive the spillage of UP politics permeated with toxic caste, communitarian and religious antagonisms which have seeped into its four campuses. In the national interest, the incumbent administration’s effort to restore the academic and administrative autonomy and cleanse the Augean stables of this once venerable institution needs the support of all right thinking members of society.“Mindset change required for reforms”Autar Nehru interviewed Dr. Rattan Lal Hangloo, vice chancellor of Allahabad University, in his office sited in the imposing Darbhanga Hall. Excerpts.You took charge as vice chancellor of Allahabad University at a time when the university was facing a major corruption scandal and its reputation was at a nadir. What are the major factors behind AU’s steady decline in public esteem?I had heard many great things about Allahabad University and was honoured to be appointed vice chancellor. But soon after I assumed office in 2015, my perceptions about this once-great institution were shattered. There was no academic environment; faculty and employees were fearful and students demotivated. Some of the university’s buildings and hostels were illegally occupied by graduates and outsiders. Some staff in administrative positions were involved in brazen corruption and favouritism. The appointment of a succession of ill-qualified and incompetent vice chancellors had resulted in the near collapse of the university.In June, AU was the centre of student protests because of your administration’s eviction of students from the varsity’s 20 hostels. Despite the protests you persisted with the hostel eviction drive…Most of the hostels were occupied by graduated students and even criminal elements. The Allahabad high court had ordered us to evict them from student hostels. We followed the orders of the high court and cleansed the hostels of criminals and illegal activities. Initially, students protested but now things are better. We have big plans to improve residential accommodation. I have been able to get sanction for construction of three new hostels and a new classrooms complex for which we have raised Rs.11 crore from alumni.Implementing any reform and upgradation programme is challenging because opposition from vested interests with stakes in the status quo is inevitable. For instance, repair of one hostel was held up for seven years reportedly because some students demanded a commission from the contractor. I have taught in Central universities for 35 years but nowhere have I encountered such brazen corruption. However, we are overcoming these challenges.AU is facing a huge faculty shortage crisis with 60 percent vacancies. This has adversely affected teaching and research. How are you addressing this problem?This is a serious issue. There are 600 teacher vacancies in AU and the teacher-student ratio of 1:51 is alarming as no major faculty recruitment drive has been initiated in the past 22 years.Within a month of my appointment, I set about filling vacancies but people with vested interests went to court alleging nepotism. The Allahabad high court ruled in our favour and we re-advertised to fill urgent vacancies. But this time, the University Grants Commission has delayed the selection process because a special leave petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the recruitment process. Unfortunately, suits and counter-suits are delaying the entire process. Currently, we are heavily reliant on guest faculty and Ph D research scholars helping out. But this is not the solution as students are suffering loss of learning and AU loss of reputation.Over the past three years, you have introduced several infrastructure and academic upgradation measures. Please highlight the major initiatives.The university lacks adequate infrastructure. When the Supreme Court directed universities to admit OBC students without decreasing the number of merit seats, the number of students increased by 60 percent. But infrastructure facilities were not enhanced commensurately. There is no large auditorium and the classrooms and labs also need urgent upgradation. We have started by renovating the administrative block and have set up a state-of-the-art 24/7 computer lab. Several new postgrad courses such as Master of computer applications have been introduced and our Centre for Cognitive and Behavioural Sciences which is rated the best in South Asia, has been upgraded into a centre of excellence. But there is urgent need to construct new hostels because some of them are more than hundred years old, and require immediate renovation and repair.Over the past year, we have also signed academic collaboration agreements with universities in Germany and the US. Moreover, the Union government’s department of science and technology has increased grants for our science departments which has given a boost to our research activities.What are your future growth and development plans for the university?Allahabad University has its own peculiar set of problems which has hurt its academic and institutional reputation. Therefore, restoring the university’s academic and research culture by weeding out corrupt practices is our top priority. In addition, we have drawn up plans to introduce several contemporary study programmes, upgrade infrastructure facilities, cleanse the university of anti-social elements and recruit competent faculty. But for these initiatives to succeed, there has to be a mindset change in the university’s teacher and student communities, as also within the political establishment. Corruption-free and impartial administration free from political interference and a non-politicised student body are crucial for AU to regain its lost reputation.Thanks

Understanding the European-wide assault on multiculturalismBy Liz Fekete21 April 2011, 4:00pmIn singling out multiculturalism as a threat to national identity, the leaders ofEurope's centre-right parties are using the same kind of rhetoric and specious arguments as Enoch Powell did forty years ago.The leaders of mainstream political parties across Europe are, one after the other, announcing the death of multiculturalism in their countries. They tell us of the need to focus instead on national identity. The language, terms and metaphors used subtly (and in some cases crudely) convey a sense of national victimhood, of a majority culture under threat from Muslim minorities and new migrants, who demand special privileges and group rights and refuse to learn the language. What this amounts to is the mobilisation by leading members principally, but not entirely, from the centre right, of a new popular 'common sense' racism against Muslims and foreigners. It is a racism that builds on the proliferation of stereotypical generalisations about 'Muslim culture' and the Islamic mind-set that have been generated over the last decade. We are witnessing the revival of arguments first used by Enoch Powell, the Conservative shadow defence secretary who was sacked by Edward Heath in 1968 for his 'Rivers of Blood' speech that warned of the dangers posed by mass immigration from the New Commonwealth.[1] Only this time, it is not one rogue European politician carrying the flag, but the leaders of centre-right parties now replacing race and immigration with culture and religion as the watch words. And it is taking place at a time of economic crisis and swingeing cuts, when politicians are desperate to deflect public anger and explain away societal break down.Sarrazin establishes frameworkIn the last six months, leading (mostly) centre-right politicians from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom have made speeches, heavily trailed in the media, attacking what British prime minister David Cameron described as 'the state doctrine of multiculturalism' or what leading Norwegian Conservative Torbjørn Røe Isaksen dismissed as 'the naive liberal ideology that people can live together in peace and freedom if they just understand each other well enough'.[2] One of the factors driving the current discussion was the publication in Germany in August 2010 of Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself), a book by Thilo Sarrazin, a Social Democrat (facing expulsion) and former member (he was sacked) of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank. Deutschland schafft sich ab, now in its sixteenth edition, is one of the most-read books inGermany since Mein Kampf, and its publication has made Sarrazin a millionaire many times over. Many German citizens, particularly among the middle classes, are drawn to Sarrazin's message that a once great nation is now at grave risk of descending into idiocy as immigrants (i.e. Turks) are genetically of lower intelligence and have higher fertility rates. Since his removal from the board of the Bundesbank, there is increasing support for Sarrazin as a victim of political correctness. Since opinion polls and surveys across Europe routinely show immigration to be a key voter issue and that voters would like to see restrictions on freedom of religion for Muslims, the Sarrazin view poses a very real problem for mainstream politicians. How can they distance themselves from such arguments, clearly based on a revival of Social Darwinism, while not criticising or losing out on the votes of his avid followers?The solution for many German politicians is to publicly criticise Sarrazin's tone while arguing that when it comes to issues of multiculturalism and integration (of Muslims in particular), Sarrazin might just possibly have a valid point. The debate that Sarrazin unleashed had particular resonance in other German-speaking countries such as Switzerland and Austria. Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the extreme-Right Freedom Party (with 27 per cent of the vote, the second largest party in Vienna) identified himself with the 'hunted' Sarrazin who deserved to be given political asylum in Austria.[3] Austria's interior minister , Maria Fekter (Austrian People's Party, ÖVP) went further than other senior Conservatives when she too identified herself with Sarrazin, saying she felt 'confirmed' by the debate he had initiated.[4] Ever since 2009, Fekter had been under attack from NGOs working in the fields of immigration, refugees, human rights and anti-racism who initially refused to endorse the assimilationist bent of her National Action Plan on Integration (NAPI) and accused her of pandering to Islamophobia and stereotyping Muslims with her emphasis on integration into 'values' (suggesting Muslims were a threat to democracy and a state based on the rule of law).[5]By October 2010, evidence emerged that centre-right politicians across Europe were using the Sarrazin thesis for their own political advantage as a means of introducing a strident assimilationist tone into debates on integration. As country after country plunged into economic crisis and austerity measures loomed, politicians began to identify multiculturalism with social regression and all that was tearing Europe apart. In Germany, where there will be elections in seven of the country's sixteen states in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had previously described Sarrazin's book as 'not helpful', set the parameters for discussion. She received a standing ovation from the youth wing of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) when she declared in a speech in Potsdam on 16 October 2010 that the multicultural society had 'utterly failed', that the 'multikulti' concept - where people would 'live side-by-side' happily - did not work, and that immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.[6] Sharing the podium with her in Potsdam was Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU, the CDU's sister party in Bavaria). Seehofer declared that multiculturalism was dead, adding that the Right was committed to a 'dominant German culture' (Leitkultur).[7]The outgoing Belgian prime minister Yves Leterme (Christian Democrat & Flemish party - CD&V) stated in a radio interview on 2 November, on the eve of a visit by the German Chancellor to Brussels, that he believed Merkel to be right in her remarks in so far as 'the policies of integration have not always had the beneficial effects that were expected of them'.[8] Other Conservative leaders - from French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Dutch deputy prime minister Maxine Verhagen, to Danish Liberal Party immigration minister, Søren Pind and the British prime minister David Cameron - strove to introduce variations on Merkel's theme. Verhagen (Christian Democrat Appeal, CDA) repeated Merkel's claim that multiculturalism had failed, stressing that the Dutch no longer felt at home in their own country while immigrants were not entirely happy either, and called on the Dutch to be prouder of their nation.[9] During a television interview, and using a characteristically impatient tone, Sarkozy declared that 'We do not want ... a society where communities coexist side by side. If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.'[10]Søren Pind, Denmark's controversial newly appointed immigration minister - a former advisory board member of the notorious Free Press Society[11] - spoke out in favour of assimilation, 'as a mixture of cultures does not work'. 'It should be set in stone,' Pind argued, 'that Denmark only has room for foreigners that adopt and respect Danish values, norms and traditions; if they don't, they shouldn't be here at all.'[12] At an international security conference in Munich on 5 February 2011 (the same day that the far-Right English Defence League was marching through Luton), British prime minister David Cameron pitched in declaring that 'under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream'. The 'weakening of our collective identity', furthermore, in what could be defined as 'a passively tolerant society' needs to be replaced. With possible reference to the 19th century ethos of muscular Christianity - widely seen as a key engine driver of British colonialism - Cameron argued in favour of a 'much more active muscular liberalism'.[13]Multiculturalism as proxyAll the European Conservative and Liberal party leaders and government ministers, in making these statements, presented themselves as courageous iconoclasts. They imply that multiculturalism has become a form of political correctness against which it is difficult to speak out. Through what Cameron describes as a 'hands-off tolerance', states have conceded too much power to minorities. This idea that, through an excess of generosity and decency, countries have put in place benign multicultural policies, is part of a European-wide myth constructed over the last decade. So too is the notion that politicians are now doing something new in attacking multiculturalism. The term may be the new bogey but it is in fact merely a proxy for Powell's idea of aggressive immigrants and their supporters, out to 'overawe and dominate the rest'.[14]Enoch Powell was the British Conservative MP who, in the late 1960s, systematically tried to establish the idea that immigrant workers were an alien horde violating the deepest instincts of a culturally homogenous people. But Powell had admirers on the continent, like the far-right Swiss MP James Schwarzenbach. He called in 1970 for a national referendum on Überfremdung (excess of foreigners). Ulrich Schlüer, Schwarzenbach's secretary in those days, is now a Swiss People's Party MP who has taken to campaigning against the excesses of Islam. He was co-president of the Swiss anti-minaret movement that successfully campaigned via referendum to forbid the construction of minarets.Powell and Schwarzenbach's flame was kept alive in the UK in the 1980s by a coterie of New Right ideologues (influenced by Friedrich Hayek) including Roger Scruton (founder of the Conservative Philosophy Group), philosophy professor Anthony Flew and head teacher Ray Honeyford - with their supporters in the tabloid press. They drew on the Powellite heritage to launch a concerted attack on cultural pluralism/multiculturalism which they said had given rise to a 'reverse racism' and a cultural relativism which posed a threat to the unity of the British nation and its (superior) values and traditions. (The Institute of Race Relations was, for example, attacked for the 'bias' in the educational books 'Roots' and 'Patterns of racism' it had produced for young people [the media suggested they were so inflammatory as to have ignited riots by black youngsters in north London and extreme-right politicians asked the government to ban them from schools and shops] and for the position taken by its director, A. Sivanandan, whose anti-racist 'mischief' was specifically deplored in the book Anti-racism - an assault on education and value edited by Frank Palmer, The Sherwood Press, 1986.)Again, there were similar movements on the continent, such as the Nouvelle Droite in France, whose theorists Pierre-André Taguiff and Alain de Benoist attacked anti-racism as a form of xenophobia and the German academics in the Heidelberg Circle which, in 1982, issued a manifesto arguing that citizenship via naturalisation threatened the ethnic purity of the German Volk. For many of today's European advocates of New Right thinking Enoch Powell still remains the iconic figure - a hero in the rightwing resistance to immigration and multiculturalism. For instance, the Swiss People's Party MP Oskar Freysinger, in his keynote speech at the December 2010 'Against the Islamisation of Europe' conference in Paris (jointly organised by the fascist Bloc Indentitaire and the Left Riposte Laïque) declared Powell his hero while calling for the 'Swiss model' of banning minarets to be exported to other European countries.[15]Could this attack on multiculturalism have been more coordinated than it appears at first glance - particularly since the European People's Party (the largest grouping in the European parliament, with 256 members) reacted coolly to the Party of European Socialists' call in October 2010 for all European parliament groupings to adopt a five-point code of conduct on isolating the extreme Right? Indeed, since the Dutch Conservatives and Liberals entered in September 2010 into a coalition government, which is reliant on the support of Geert Wilders' Islamophobic Freedom Party, it has become clear that centre-right parties are preparing for future power-sharing with the extreme Right, as tacitly acknowledged by Wilfred Martens, the President of the European People's Party. He said that while Conservatives would not work with the extreme Right in the European parliament, the European People's Party would not dictate to national parties, thus leaving the door open for collaboration at a national, regional and local level.[16] It would seem that the centre Right is responding to the greater coordination of the European anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim electoral forces in preparation for the 2014 European parliament elections by embracing their arguments. This mirrors the way Margaret Thatcher stole the clothes of the National Front in January 1978 in her notorious 'swamping' speech. It is no exaggeration, therefore, to say that the centre Right and the extreme Right are simultaneously building on the anti-immigration, anti-cultural pluralism and anti-anti racism legacy of Powell and the New Right. In line with the whole shift in racism following the war on terror (from anti-black to 'civilisational' racism) culture and religion have now replaced biology and colour in a discourse where multiculturalism is being used as the whipping boy, to explain away the impact of the economic and social crisis.Mobilising the majority, establishing victimhoodIn fact, this new New Right discourse closely resembles the old Them/Us, black/white debate. There is again the playing of the 'race card', only now it is the 'Islam card' or the 'anti-Muslim card' which is most often dealt in electoral politics. It is true that few of the political leaders speak in overtly anti-Muslim, or anti-Islamic terms. But some, like Bavarian prime minister Horst Seehorfer or French president Nicolas Sarkozy, certainly do. Seehorfer was accused of indulging in 'arsonist-style rightwing populism' when he railed against the difficulties posed in integrating immigrants from 'other cultures', namely 'cultural circles' like 'Turkey and the Arab countries' and called a halt to all such immigration.[17]As fears grow that the deeply unpopular Nicolas Sarkozy could even be knocked out in the first round of the 2012 presidential elections by the Front National's (FN) Marine Le Pen, and some Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) politicians openly discuss local and regional survival through a UMP-FN pact, Sarkozy announced in March 2011 a national debate on Islam's place in secular France. Even before the national discussion took place, Sarkozy was offering a list to journalists of things that France definitely did not want: halal food options in school canteens, prayers outside mosques, veils, definitely non - and oh, non to minarets![18]Other politicians play the 'Islam card' in a more roundabout way and with qualification to establish their bona fides. But once their speeches are decoded, much of the same anti-Muslim message breaks through. As a former head of communications at Carlton Television, the British prime minister David Cameron has emerged, in the last few months, as the past master of argument by qualification. Cameron's discourse is perfectly crafted à la English liberal, the reasonable man par excellence. In his Munich speech, for instance, he spoke approvingly of Islam as a peaceful religion and criticised the 'hard Right' for its 'clash of civilisations' thesis, something he thoroughly rejected. But as the theme of his Munich speech was Islamist extremism, terrorism and national identity, when he argued that we have been 'too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them', even in the face of the 'horrors of forced marriage', there can be no doubt that 'them' meant Muslims. And here once again we see the redrafting of the theme of 'aggressive minorities' out 'to overawe and dominate the rest'. But if Cameron echoes the Powellite theme of aggressive minorities dominating the rest of the nation, his delivery is studiously without Powell's emotionalism and inflammatory language.All the political leaders purport to represent the voice of the beleaguered majority, but define the majority culture and the national identity that they are defending in different ways. In some cases, the politicians argues that the case against Muslims and immigrants (the two seem interchangeable, there doesn't for instance seem to be a single German Muslim in the whole of Germany, only Muslim immigrants) is made on the basis of secularism, Enlightenment values and liberalism. In other cases it is made in defence of Christianity, or the Judaeo-Christian western tradition. In a few cases it is even made on behalf of the white majority. The choice of words, the juxtaposition of arguments, draw from a lexicon of victimhood: the majority are victimised by the minority, national identity is under threat from 'alien cultures'.In Germany, where every one of these elements has been at play, it is the Christian leitmotif that is emerging as the dominant note in the debate about Leitkultur (leading culture). The fact that German culture is now defined by the Christian religion is a fact deplored by the respected philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who senses that behind this is a relapse into an 'ethnic understanding of our liberal constitution'. 'With an arrogant appropriation of Judaism - and an incredible disregard for the fate the Jews suffered in Germany - the apologists of the Leitkultur now appeal to the "Judeo-Christian tradition" which distinguishes us from foreigners', laments Habermas.[19]Like Cameron, Angela Merkel attempted to be conciliatory in her Potsdam speech, stating that Islam was part of Germany. But she immediately cancelled that out by arguing in the next breath that Germany was defined by Christian values and that 'those who do not accept this are in the wrong place here'. Since Merkel's speech, several leading Bavarian politicians have made the link between German nationalism and Christianity even more forcefully. The Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann for instance stated, 'Our fundamental values are clearly grounded in the Christian-western tradition. Germany does not want to integrate to Islam but rather to preserve its cultural identity'.[20]The Bavarian minister for social affairs, Christine Haderthauer argued for a hierarchy of religions stressing that 'religious freedom must not become religious equality'.[21] And, at the beginning of March 2011, after a gun attack at Frankfurt airport which left two US servicemen dead, the new federal interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) declared that Islam did not belong in Germany. In his first press conference as a minister, Friedrich said that while Muslims should be allowed to live in modern Germany, 'to say that Islam belongs to Germany is not a fact supported by history.'[22]Another tack altogether has been taken by the German federal minister for family, youth and seniors, Kristina Schröder (CDU) who (apparently unable to grasp the essence of racism) is in charge of government policies to counter far-right extremism. In an interview with the Bild newspaper, which focused on the problem of Muslim youth, Schröder declared that 'we are dealing with fundamentally hostile attitudes towards other groups - particularly against Germans and Christians. We need to act as decisively against this as against xenophobia.'[23] Her comments came during a vigorous debate in the right-wing media promoting the New Right 'reverse racism thesis', and suggesting that the biggest threat to Germany came from 'hatred against Germans or 'racism against white Germans'. The argument of reverse racism with Germans as the true victims of the Muslim population, is gaining ground. The Stern TV even promoted a survey on the topic, the conclusion of which was that 85 per cent of white German participants said they had experienced discrimination.[24] That Schröder, the minister in charge of preventing extremism, could make recourse to the New Right reverse racism thesis is disturbing in itself. But when it happens whilst there is an upsurge in far-Right violence and Islamophobic attacks in Berlin, one has to question whether she should be handling the brief to counter right-wing extremism. Since November 2010 several mosque and cultural centres have come under repeated arson attack. At least thirteen arson attacks on residential buildings of migrants in Berlin Neukölln took place in the first three months of 2011.[25]Nativism, jobs and benefitsThe fact that mainstream politicians are now speaking to the fear and hatred promoted by the extreme-Right's anti-multicultural platform, and thereby legitimating conspiracy theories about Muslims, is not lost on the extreme Right. As an excited Geert Wilders told the Spiegel news magazine, both Merkel and the CDU have taken 'the lead in the domain of Islam criticism'.[26]The FN's Marine Le Pen told the Financial Times, David Cameron's attack on the failures of multiculturalism is 'exactly' the 'type of statement that has barred us from public life for thirty years. I sense an evolution at European level, even in classic governments. I can only congratulate him.'[27]In most cases, centre-right politicians frame their attack on multiculturalism in terms of a need to dismantle barriers to integration or, even, in the case of Søren Pind, assimilation. They steer clear of the extreme-Right's inflammatory rhetoric, with its undertone of cultural cleansing. But this is not always the case. Nicolas Sarkozy rarely fails to reach for incendiary vocabulary. But his repeated attempts to rally FN voters often rebound on his own party. Thus, in March 2011, Sarkozy had to sack his diversity adviser Abderrahmane Dahmane after Dahmane called on all Muslim members of the UMP to withhold party membership unless the national debate on Islam and secularism was cancelled. In fact Sarkozy's wish-list - no Muslims praying outside, no halal meat options in schools, and no minarets - is merely a pale reflection of the FN's programme, as UMP members full know. In December 2010, Marine Le Pen compared Muslims praying in the street outside the overcrowded mosques of certain Parisian neighbourhoods to the Nazi occupation and described fifteen areas of France where Muslims so worshipped as occupied territories.[28] And the FN has launched its own programme against halal products, claiming that the majority of meat sold in supermarkets is halal, but the consumer is not being informed, even suggesting that eating such meat could somehow lead to the conversion of non-Muslims![29]But all those politicians who single out the multicultural society as a threat to national identity also speak to the agenda of national preference that has always been central to the extreme Right. Just as Powell's attacks on immigration led to the closing of the door to primary immigration from the New Commonwealth through the immigration acts of 1968 and 1971, today's attacks on multiculturalism have brought in their wake a round of policy proposals aimed not just at Europe's Muslim communities, but also at residents, Third Country Nationals, migrant workers and new arrivals. Islamophobia is the route politicians have travelled in order to introduce new legislation to deny migrant workers access to public services, potentially exclude long-settled immigrants from a range of social benefits, and establish a policy of national preference (nativism) in employment. In this sense, it is true to say that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism today also serve an economic purpose.Merkel in her Potsdam speech did not just attack multiculturalism. She also, crucially, declared that immigrant workers should not be considered for jobs 'until we have done all we can to help our own people to become qualified and give them a chance'.[30] National governments used to guarantee their citizens full employment, but no-one speaks of full employment anymore. As unemployment soars and employment rights are rescinded, as governments attack pension rights and the rights to sickness benefits, the discussion on employment resolves around the threat to 'native workers' posed by foreign workers. How can we discriminate against foreign workers, or in the words of former British prime minister Gordon Brown protect 'British jobs for British workers'. Already in Denmark in July 2010, Karsten Lauritzen, integration spokesman for the ruling Liberal Party (Venstre) suggested paying immigrants half the current minimum wage. Even some in his party were horrified, and other politicians argued this would stigmatise immigrants and lead to hostility as they would be seen to undercut the wages of Danish workers.[31] And in the Netherlands, where there has been a poisonous debate on migrants from eastern Europe, most of whom are on short term contracts via employment agencies, Marnix Norder, the Hague City Council member in charge of integration policies (Labour Party, PvDA), published a policy paper in November 2010 advocating that the 'tsunami' of eastern European migrants be sent home. Of course he had 'nothing against them individually, but there are so many'.[32]The centre right is establishing a narrative, with some centre-left parties following suit, to justify the biggest round of public spending cuts since the 1920s, blaming the current economic crisis not on the bankers and the global financial crisis, but on immigration. Witness David Cameron's address to party members in Romsey, Hampshire on 14 April. Though drawing from his usual bag of caveats, Cameron, with a nod to Powell, blamed New Labour for presiding over 'the largest influx of people Britain has ever had', adding that 'mass immigration' had placed 'pressures on communities up and down the country', 'on schools, housing and healthcare'.[33] The coalition agreement of the Dutch Liberal and Christian Democrat parties, which depends on the support of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, on coming to power in September 2010, included five pages of proposals aimed at 'a substantial reduction of immigration'. Soon Wilders was warning the coalition that there would be trouble ahead if immigration from 'non-western countries' was not reduced by fifty per cent. Only the amendment of five EU directives and four European Treaties could realise Wilders' dream, according to Professor Cees Groenendijk, an expert on national and EU law.[34] But the coalition government's riposte (to keep Wilders quiet ) is to exclude certain groups from public services, establishing thereby, a system whereby new migrants are taxed but denied access to key services. It is an approach being perfected in Denmark where the Danish People's Party, in return for propping up the Liberal-Conservative coalition, has established a stranglehold on immigration policy. There has been a long debate in Denmark about the cost of immigration in which the DPP has created the fiction that non-western immigrants take more out in benefits than what they contribute in taxes and national insurance payments. Following the establishment of a cross-party committee to investigate foreigners' rights to public services, the Danish government outlined in April 2011 twenty-eight proposals - all of which are targeted at foreigners - to ease the pressure on the welfare state. Migrants will have to earn their right to healthcare and social services, but will still have to pay taxes. Other proposals include: mandatory private health insurance for foreigners in their first four years in the country; foreigners having to pay to visit the doctor in their first two years; extending the required residency of foreigners to qualify for housing subsidies; reduced child care benefits in the first two years.[35] The government has also proposed a change to pension rules for refugees, establishing a requirement that they have lived in Denmark for forty years before they qualify for a full pension.Language as nationA recurring theme in the debates about multiculturalism and national identity and immigrants and Muslims causing the economic crisis, is the issue of language or, more accurately 'language deficit'. Government hypocrisy is at its most blatant when immigrants are blamed for not learning the language when the self-same government slashes funding for language provision. As the Austrian cabinet approved new pre-entry integration language requirements, and the Social Democrat Conservative coalition government considered new legislation which would lead to the deportation of immigrants whose German does not reach a certain level in the first few years of living in the country, the Green party spokesperson for integration in Vienna, Alev Korun warned, 'The German language is increasingly being used as a marginalisation tool'.[36] David Cameron, in his Hampshire speech, even went so far as to blame those who fail to learn the language for the breakdown in neighbourhood connectedness stating that 'real communities' are bound together by 'common experiences ... forged by friendship and conversation' so that when 'significant numbers of new people' arrive in neighbourhoods 'perhaps not able to speak the language' neighbourhoods become more 'disjointed'. In an interview with the Guardian, German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble (CDU) underlined his belief that it had been a mistake to recruit so many guest workers from Turkey during the economic boom of the 1960s. He claimed that he now found that some people were living in Germany who do not speak the language.[37](It is worth noting that in times of full employment and when countries such as the Netherlands and Germany relied on foreign workers from Turkey and North Africa, the fact they did not speak Dutch or German never seemed to cause a problem.) At the October 2010 party conference in Munich, the CSU adopted a seven-point plan which included sanctions against those immigrants who could not speak fluent German. Proposals in other European countries are also based on sanctions for a so-called language deficit.A new word has been coined in German - Integrationsverweigerer (literally integration refuser). It is used to describe those immigrants who show a lack of willingness to adapt, for instance, by failing to attend German language classes. The language issue is so potent for those who want to revive German nationalism that the rightwing Bild has backed an initiative by the Association for the German Language and the Association for German Cultural Relations to change the German Constitution so that the primacy of the German language is acknowledged. The paper is encouraging its readers to send letters to the Association for the German Language stating 'I don't want third generation immigrant families who refuse to learn the language of the country they live in'. The fight to defend cultural, religious and civil rights in Europe - which currently centres around the veil, mosques and minarets - may have to extend to include a fight to preserve minority languages. Cameron's observation that 'real communities' are forged by 'friendship and conversation' can easily morph - as indeed it already has, on occasion, in Berlin and, in the past, in Rotterdam - into an administrative instruction that no foreign languages be spoken in the playground or in public spaces. Kenan Kolat, chair of the Turkish Community in Germany clearly saw such regressive thinking as a distinct possibility when he warned that if the German Constitution were indeed changed there had to a sub clause to the effect that 'The state must respect the identity of cultural and linguistic minorities'.[38]Thanks to Sibille Merz for research on Germany.References: [1] For a discussion of those arguments, and how they were revived during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, see Nancy Murray, 'The press and ideology in Thatcher's Britain', Race & Class, Winter 1986. [2] Interview with Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, Klassekampen, 15 February 2011. Translation by Mari Linløkken. [3] Austrian Independent, 7 October 2010. [4] Austrian Independent, 4 October 2010. [5] See the critique of Carla Anna Baghajati, 'Almost worse than Strache', Die Presse, print edition, 4 November 2009. [6] Guardian, 18 October 2010. [7] Ibid. [8] Migration News Sheet, December 2010. [9] DutchNews.nl brings daily news from The Netherlands in English, 15 February 2011. [10] Agence France Presse, 12 February 2011. [11] Pind resigned as a member of the board in 2009 following the prosecution of its chair, Lars Hedegaard - a member of the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party - who was acquitted on a technicality of violating Danish anti-racism laws following a prosecution for comments to the effect that girls in Muslim families are 'raped by their uncles, their cousins or their fathers'. Free Press Society-Denmark was created in 2004 by Lars Hedegaard, a newspaper columnist, citing increasing pressure on free speech, and the 'cartoons crisis'. It is linked to the International Free Press Society whose Board of Advisors includes leading neoconservatives and New Right figures such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and regular Fox News commentator Andrew Bostom. [12]Copenhagen Post, 9, 17 March 2011. [13] 'David Cameron's speech on radicalisation and Islamic extremism, Munich, 5 February', New Statesman, 5 February 2011. [14] Speech delivered on 20 April 1968 which continued: 'As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood".' [15] 'Quand les assises de l'Islamisation applaudissent Michel Onfray', Les Indiginès de la République, 16 January 2011. [16] EU Observer 16 October 2010. [17] The accusation was made by Claudia Roth, the co-chair of the Green Party. See Guardian, 11 October 2010. [18] Guardian, 4 March 2011. [19] Jürgen Habermas, Leadership and Leitkultur, New York Times, 28 October 2010. [20] Migration News Sheet, November 2010. [21] Migration News Sheet, November 2010. [22] The junior partner in the coalition government seems to be hostile to the stance taken by the other two parties, which seems driven by the Christian Social Union, which has strong roots in Bavarian Catholicism. Justice minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Free Democrat Party FDP) attacked the minister, stating that 'of course Islam belongs in Germany', adding that 'I assume that the new minister will follow the lead of his predecessor and will take his responsibility for integration policy seriously, and campaign for cohesion rather than exclusion.' Guardian, 4 March 2011. [23]Bild, 2 November 2010. [24] 'Deutschenfeindlichkeit - Realität an Schulen?', STERN TV, 21 October 2010. [25] Migazin, 24 March 2011. [26] Earth Times, 7 November 2010. [27] As cited in Guardian, 11 February 2011. [28] Telegraph, 12 December 2010. [29] Financial Times, 9 February 2011. [30] Guardian, 17 October 2010. [31] Der Spiegel, 15 July 2010. [32] Dutch News, 2 November 2010. [33] Guardian, 14 April 2010. [34] Migration News Sheet, November 2010. [35]Copenhagen Post, 7 April 2011. [36] Associated Press, 6 March 2011. [37] Guardian, 18 March 2011. [38] Deutsche Welle, 9 November 2010.The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.http://www.irr.org.uk/2011/april/ha000021.html© Institute of Race Relations