Indian  School Controversy Special Edition May 11, 2003

School News Home Page

An Earnest Appeal to Parents, Board Members and Community Leaders

The recent decision by the Board of Directors of Indian Schools in Oman to revoke what is believed to be controversial agreement between the Indian Ambassador in Ranjith Guptha (1992) and two private promoters Viz. the Hindu Mahajan Association and P. Mohammed Ali- has intensified the ongoing cold war between the Indian Ambassador in his capacity as the patron of Indian schools and majority of board members on one hand and two prominent private promoters and the board members representing them in the Indian School Board. Full Report

MoUs of Indian School Al Ghubra, Indian School Wadi Kabir Revoked Strictly Following Board Meeting Norms.

The decision by the Board of Directors (BoD) to cancel the controversial agreements between a former Ambassador and two private promoters was passed as per the existing rules and regulations, claim School sources. The Board of Directors implemented the decision of the Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman, contained in the Ministry's directive to the Indian schools - document dated June 25, 2002 No 546 and reiterated by the Minister of Education vide his directive to the Ambassador of India and Patron of the Indian Schools in Oman dated July 9, 2002. Full

Iraq: Foreigners Fleeing to Jordan Former Refugees Become Refugees Again

(Baghdad, May 10, 2003) - Attacks and harassment amidst the security vacuum in Iraq have forced refugees and other foreigners to flee the country and become refugees again, this time in Jordan, Human Rights Watch said today in a new report, "Flight From Iraq."More

Saudi Arabia: Human Rights Groups Emerging

(New York, May 9, 2003)--The royal decree approving the establishment of Saudi Arabia's first nongovernmental human rights organization is a welcome initiative that holds a promise
of greater freedom of association, Human Rights Watch said today. In addition, the government plans to launch its own national human rights body.More

Controversial Private School MoU Goes Public

"The income of the schools from collection of fees and any other source will belong to the Association and to no other party," says the agreement. "The Association assumes responsibility for meeting from its own resources any excess of expenditure over income. In the event of income exceeding expenditure, such excess will belong to the Association to be disposed off in any manner it wishes," says clause 4 of the agreement. The Board says that the local rules prohibit using community schools from functioning for profit. " Full Report

The Villain Ambassador Violates Rules?

Some of the recent reports imply that the Indian Ambassador in Muscat, the patron of Indian schools, is a villain who violates all the rules and regulations. It is unfortunate that the patron who has rectified a number of past mistakes by his own predcissors is accused of violating rules and regulations. Within the first one year of assuming power, he did a number of steps to rectify the past mistakes committed by some of the corrupt bureaucrats. Despite a protracted fight, the patron revoked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with a private party to develop the third private school. Despite all lobbying, the decision was approved by the Ministry of Education. Now he has exposed two more agreements of similar nature.

One report suggested that the Ambassador has been keeping two agreements with private promoters as top secrets and informed the Ministry of Education about only one agreement Well, the current patron assumed office only about two years back. Is he responsible for hiding such agreements signed way back in the early 1990s from the scrutiny of local authorities? The Agreements were signed by the former Ambassadors (Ranjith Guptha and Satnam Singh ) during their last innings here. Since then the agreements have been top secret - every body heard about it, but not many from the Indian community had seen it. Despite strong opposition, K M Meena was bold enough to revoke agreement signed by his immediate successor. Some of his decisions are question in courts.

Now he has shown his boldness to revoke two more such agreements. Has he violated any local rules and regulations in taking such bold steps? Royal Decree Number 136 dated November 1, 1977 says that any schools for general education established by any person or institution other than the Ministry of Education shall be known as Private schools. "The Establishment of such schools shall be subjected to the approval of the Ministry of Education in as much as it is the sole Government body with authority over the various stages of general education," it says.

It is surprising that a sincere patron who has diagnosed that some of the schools have not followed this norm is accused of violating rules! According to the Ministerial Decision No 116/91 applications to establish community schools have to be submitted to the Ministry through the Embassy. Article 9 of the agreement says that community schools may not be under an Omani mediator or sponsorship. Article 25 of the Ministerial Decision says that community schools may not be utilized for any commercial or other purposes which contradict with the main objectives for which the school was established for." Is it a violation of Omani law by the patron to ask Indian school charging double the fees in other community schools to reduce fee? Or to rectify what he feels are against the community interest?