An MoU Cancelled Is an Opportunity Lost

Menu
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Politics
An MoU Cancelled Is an Opportunity Lost
D.V. Ramana
13 minutes ago
When higher educational institutions disengage from international collaboration due to short-term political conflicts, they abandon their capacity for building relationships that transcend politics.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
In a recent move, one of India's top management institutes announced it was terminating its academic Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Turkey's Sabancı University. The Indian Institute of Management-Kozhikode's director claimed the decision was in line with 'national interest,' emphasising values such as 'mutual respect, strategic alignment, and shared national values.' Though the decision aligned with overall mood of the country, it also raised critical questions about the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in times of political unease in the country over incidents like the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam. Should academic institutions echo state policies, or should they operate as independent spaces for intellectual exchange and global cooperation?
Education has always been seen as a powerful force for change. Several global leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela viewed higher educational institutions not as learning but as organisations playing a important role in shaping society and promoting peace. After World War II, HEIs played an important role in maintaining international ties and contributing to global advancement.
HEIs are expected to work with a long-term perspective. They are expected to preserve the academic community, support national strength, and create a future through knowledge and wisdom. When HEIs begin to align too closely with short political decisions, they risk compromising their integrity and international standing. The recent decision of the management institute to follow the government may diminish its role as a moral and intellectual leader.
Academic Freedom and National Security
During global conflicts, national security is a legitimate concern. During war-like conditions governments may view relations with institutions in adversarial countries as risky or politically unsuitable. However, academic MoUs should be evaluated on their specific merits rather than being discarded wholesale. HEIs should assess whether specific collaborations pose actual risks to security or whether they provide genuine academic value.
In many cases, political differences at the state level need not translate into academic seclusion. Continuing such relationships – even during conflict – can foster shared knowledge and cultural exchange, acting as channels for mutual understanding and positive diplomatic relationship in the long run. Even during the Cold War, American and Soviet scholars continued to connect through academic programmes. These exchanges served as informal diplomatic channels, promoting mutual understanding even when formal relations were troubled.
When HEIs disengage from international collaboration due to short-term political conflicts, they abandon their capacity for building relationships that transcend politics. The decision by this premier management institute, to end its MoU with an international university, ignores the rich tradition of academic diplomacy.
HEIs as agents of peace and dialogue
Global conflicts may arise due to ideological, economic, or security reasons such as cross-border terrorism. Conflict resolution strategies, therefore, must be diverse and appropriately tailored. As Albert Einstein said, 'The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.' HEIs can lead this transformation through teaching, research, dialogue facilitation, and public engagement. Therefore, the cancellation of international MoUs sends a confusing signal to the public at large. The management institute should have kept the relationship alive to play its role as a facilitator of dialogue and innovation.
As Leo Tolstoy said, 'War is a product of an erroneous way of thinking… and can only be abolished by a better understanding of human nature.' Such understanding does not emerge in silence or conformity. It is developed in classrooms, research collaborations, and intellectual discourse. HEIs are expected to provide such spaces.
In fact, several HEIs have taken such steps in the past. A notable example is the University of Oslo and the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), which have a strategic agreement to emerge as a global powerhouse for knowledge on the prevention and resolution of armed conflicts.
Drifting away from institutional mission
Let me conclude by referring to the mission statement of IIM Kozhikode. It says, 'The Institute seeks to inculcate a spirit of wholesome learning and create a unique space of global reckoning, thereby nurturing capable and dependable management thinkers in the pursuit of developing socially responsible and environmentally friendly practitioners, leaders, and educators who will contribute towards creating a better world.'
This mission underscores the broader responsibility that an institute must shoulder. It must not merely react to short-term national policies but must proactively shape a more equitable and sustainable future. The mission statement echoes strongly with the idea that HEIs must transcend national boundaries and foster global cooperation, especially in times of global conflicts that we are witnessing today. By disconnecting from a foreign academic partner, the premier management institute seems to have drifted away from its stated commitment to global engagement and knowledge exchange.
D.V. Ramana is professor, Xavier Institute of Management, XIM University, Bhubaneswar.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition
When Abroad, NDA Delegates Forced to State the Opposite of Their Exclusionary Politics at Home
Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India
Listen: India's Reaction to Turkey is Understandable, But We Should Not Give Up on Diplomacy with it
Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart
The Opposition Owes the Indian public Some Answers
INDIA Bloc Pushes for Special Session of Parliament on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor
India Discusses Celebi's Security Clearance Revocation With Turkish Embassy
India Needs a Clear National Security Strategy—Now More Than Ever
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

21 hours ago

• Business Standard

With Trump involved, wartime Nato summit may shift focus from Ukraine

At its first summits after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Nato gave President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pride of place at its table. It won't be the same this time. Europe's biggest land conflict since World War II is now in its fourth year and still poses an existential threat to the continent. Ukraine continues to fight a war so that Europeans don't have to. Just last week, Russia launched one of the biggest drone attacks of the invasion on Kyiv. But things have changed. The Trump administration insists that it must preserve maneuvering space to entice Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, so Ukraine must not be allowed steal the limelight. In Washington last year, the military alliance's weighty summit communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country on its irreversible path" to Nato membership. The year before, a statement more than twice as long was published in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. A new Nato-Ukraine Council was set up, and Kyiv's membership path fast-tracked. Zelenskyy received a hero's welcome at a concert downtown. It will be very different at a two-day summit in the Netherlands that starts Tuesday. Nato's most powerful member, the United States, is vetoing Ukraine's membership. It's unclear how long for. Zelenskyy is invited again, but will not be seated at Nato's table. The summit statement is likely to run to around five paragraphs, on a single page, Nato diplomats and experts say. Ukraine will only get a passing mention. If the G7 summit is anything to go by Recent developments do not augur well for Ukraine. Earlier this month, frustrated by the lack of a ceasefire agreement, US President Donald Trump said it might be best to let Ukraine and Russia fight for a while before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. Last weekend, he and Putin spoke by phone, mostly about Israel and Iran, but a little about Ukraine, too, Trump said. America has warned its allies that it has other security priorities, including in the Indo-Pacific and on its own borders. Then at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump called for Russia to be allowed back into the group; a move that would rehabilitate Putin on the global stage. The next day, Russia launched its mass drone attack on Kyiv. Putin is doing this simply because he can afford to continue the war. He wants the war to go on. It is troubling when the powerful of this world turn a blind eye to it, Zelenskyy said. Trump left the G7 gathering early to focus on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Zelenskyy had travelled to Canada to meet with him. No meeting happened, and no statement on Russia or the war was agreed. Lacking unanimity, other leaders met with Zelenskyy to reassure him of their support. Questions about US support for Ukraine Trump wants to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. He said he could do it within 100 days, but that target has come and gone. Things are not going well, as a very public bust up with Zelenskyy at the White House demonstrated. Trump froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine's armed forces for a week. The US has stepped back from the Ukraine Defence Contact Group that was set up under the Biden administration and helped to drum up weapons and ammunition. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped its last meeting; the first time a Pentagon chief has been absent since Russian forces invaded in February 2022. Addressing Congress on June 10, Hegseth also acknowledged that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. It means Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's attack. Indeed, no new aid packages have been approved for Ukraine since Trump took office again in January. The message from the administration is clear: Far from guaranteed, future U.S. support for Ukraine may be in jeopardy, said Riley McCabe, Associate Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a US-based policy research organization. Cutting aid, McCabe warned, could make the Kremlin believe that US resolve is fleeting, and that time is on Russia's side. Putin has less incentive to negotiate if he believes that US disengagement is inevitable and that Russia will soon gain an advantage on the battlefield, he said. What the summit might mean for Kyiv Trump wants the summit to focus on defence spending. The 32 allies are expected to agree on an investment pledge that should meet his demands. Still, the Europeans and Canada are determined to keep a spotlight on the war, wary that Russia could set its sights on one of them next. They back Trump's ceasefire efforts with Putin but also worry that the two men are cozying up. Also, some governments may struggle to convince their citizens of the need to boost defense spending at the expense of other budget demands without a strong show of support for Ukraine and acknowledgement that Russia remains Nato's biggest security threat. The summit is highly symbolic for Ukraine in other ways. Zelenskyy wants to prevent his country from being sidelined from international diplomacy, but both he and his allies rely on Trump for US military backup against Russia. Concretely, Trump and his counterparts will dine with the Dutch King on Tuesday evening. Zelenskyy could take part. Elsewhere, foreign ministers will hold a Nato-Ukraine Council, the forum where Kyiv sits among the 32 allies as an equal to discuss its security concerns and needs. What is clear is that the summit will be short. One working session on Wednesday. It was set up that way to prevent the meeting from derailing. If the G7 is anything to go by, Trump's focus on his new security priorities right now, the conflict between Israel and Iran might make it even shorter.

India Gazette

a day ago

• India Gazette

"US military aggression is flagrant violation of international law": Iran's Permanent Mission to UN

New York [USA], June 22 (ANI): Following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the Permanent Mission of Iran to the United Nations has submitted an urgent letter to the UN Security Council, strongly denouncing what it describes as the United States' unlawful and reckless attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The communication holds both the US and Israel fully responsible for what it terms blatant violations of international law, warning of serious consequences for their actions. Iran's envoy warned that the strike undermines the credibility of the global non-proliferation regime and poses a threat to the legal framework governing civilian nuclear energy. 'Such blatant acts of aggression and violations committed by a non-NPT party, the Israeli regime, which possesses undeclared, unsafeguarded nuclear capabilities, maintains a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and has a notorious record of attacking peaceful nuclear facilities across the region and further perpetrated by the United States, the only Member State ever to have used nuclear weapons in war, massacring millions of civilians in two single strikes during World War II, and which has now openly targeted Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities that have remained under the full verification and continuous monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency,' the letter reads. Tehran in its letter further said that the United States' military aggression against sovereignty and territorial integrity constitutes a 'manifest' and 'flagrant' violation of international law and the 'peremptory' international norms enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. 'Undoubtedly, the United States' military aggression against sovereignty and territorial integrity constitutes a manifest and flagrant violation of international law and the peremptory international norms enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which categorically prohibit the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of any Member State (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). The US's armed attack against Iran's peaceful sites and facilities also violates the Statute of the Agency, IAEA General Conference Resolutions, and Security Council Resolutions 487 (1981) and 2231 (2015) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),' it added. 'In light of the grave and far-reaching consequences of the United States' savage and criminal actions for international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran urgently requests the Security Council to convene an emergency meeting without delay to address this blatant and unlawful act of aggression, to condemn it in the strongest possible terms, and to take all necessary measures under its Charter-mandated responsibilities that the perpetrator of such heinous crimes is held fully accountable and does not go unpunished,' the letter further reads. A Foreign Ministry spokesman of Oman also expressed deep concern over the escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict following US strikes and called for immediate and comprehensive de-escalation. Earlier, Iran's mission to the UN demanded an urgent meeting of the Security Council following US' attacks on its nuclear facilities. The mission described the US bombing as a 'blatant and illegal aggression' and demanded it be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The United States' military aggression against sovereignty and territorial integrity constitutes a manifest and flagrant violation of international law and the peremptory international norms enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The Embassy of Iran in India shared a statement issued by AEOI confirming that early on Sunday morning, Iran's nuclear sites were 'subjected to savage aggression--an act in violation of international laws, particularly the NPT.' 'This action, which violates international regulations, unfortunately took place under the indifference--and even complicity--of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),' it said. 'This action, which violates international regulations, unfortunately took place under the indifference--and even complicity--of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),' it said. 'Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran - including Fordow - the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' the international nuclear energy agency said in a social media post. Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the United States for launching airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, calling it a serious violation of international law, the UN Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The top Iranian diplomat accused the US, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), of 'lawless and criminal behaviour' by targeting what he described as peaceful nuclear installations. (ANI)

Mint

a day ago

• Mint

Europe Frets About US Pullout After NATO Allies Bolster Spending

NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte.