Educated People in Politics

there seems to be a general feeling, that the politics will redeem for good if educated people vote and enter politics and politicians like other streams should have minimum qualification. I dont know how such thougts can be accepted as universal wisdom with out discussion. Other day i was watching CNN IBN, Rajdeep was wondering how come in the twenteith century india can have an MP who doesnt know how to press correct buttons in the vote of trust, and he was ashamed that they were our leaders. I am simply aghast with such remarks which is so insensitive to the millions of indians who are illiterate, poor. MPs are representatives of the people and their aspirations, so its natural that some MPs and MLAs can be uneducated better unschooled. I dont know how the educated can be true representatives of all indians.

Anyways in real it is the educated babu lok who run the government, i am not very sure of their greatness. There is also feeling that the unschooled population are corrupt, ignorant and bringing down the country. such feeling doesnt help.

Freedom Individualism and love

How long can we be bad boys, how long can we bear the macho cross, think about the day when we will spend only for ourselves, have sex without guilt of corrupting and responsibilities, have less heart attacks, live longer, like all women. How many lives will you take and sacrifice in protecting small tissue. Freedom lies in not being police.

Dress and Freedom: No doubt freedom to wear the dress we please is freedom, but do we deserve it. I think going by the arguments of some students we don’t. Every body agrees to code, most say short skirt and bikinis should be banned not jeans and t shirts, so we are not talking about freedom of choice, students fighting for jeans in Chennai would be a misfit in Delhi short skirts, and so on. So the fight is about choice of dress not about freedom. Mr VC is old fashioned and importantly he was a man, that is all. Whom should we support the VC or the students, I prefer to keep equidistant, freedom to be traditional is also freedom. One last word, you can be heretic in academic circles, but never in students. Conform or perish.


The arguments: Some arguments, if we can vote can’t we choose dress, why should girls wear traditional, who can define culture, what is tamil culture, when people follow many traditions.

Counter arguments: If I can choose what you read, if I can choose the syllabus, if I can correct your papers, if I can give you grade cant I decide on the dress. Well one can argue that they don’t have competency, so are we.
Having dress code need not be traditional need not be antiwomen, many business schools follow rigid dress code, which are formals not traditional, women are allowed to wear shirts and trousers not jeans, dhothi, and kurtas. They have more rules for men than women, if you are not convinced ask a marketing guy.
This is stretching of dress code arguments. If one feels VC’s speech chauvinistic, pl refer the argument above. In fact the first victim of dress code was a boy from a jain engineerging college.

No one can define culture including historians, anthropologists, linguists, but we do it for our understanding and identity,to find common grounds. Culture is not found in scriptures, but by choosing scriptures, society by choosing its hero, god and scriptures defines its culture. It is fluid, it changes, but it is always there. Just because it changes, and some or more scriptures point otherwise it doesn’t mean it has no culture. If tamils believe kanaki to be their heroine and ram to be their hero then they are, it doesn’t matter, Krishna had 1000 wives and sanga women were highly sexual. But it is altogether a different question whether one should accept one culture. Best example is language, for us tamil alphabets are what we have today, no one questions by citing the epitapts of sanga period. Culture is finding common traits of particular people not about differences. So it is possible to define culture, to celebrate it, chastise it. The best and safest Case study for this would be brahmin's cultural differences and changes, but still you find some brahminical culture. Hope this would not be disputed. if you then you are in self defeating quagmire.

Danger lies in quoting and counter quoting from history, because it doesn’t prove the other is wrong and second what if you don't find quotes. To decide on morals we need not seek evidence in the past, something is wrong or right not because it is found in history but because it is truth.

Freedom, Individualism and love: In my understanding individualism for many is not driven by ideas, it is restricted to creating comfort zones. That is why there are more suicides in france and finland, and the UK worry about growing number of senior citizens. As long as we need love from others, fighting for rights alone will not work. It is the dependence on others that lead us on compromise on rights. Empowered women, men and children by its very nature anti family (strictly in cultural terms). We all know this, but we still flock to make one (strictly evolutionary). We are trying to bring balance. So if you are a person who wants a family, decide on how much you can compromise, know the degree can vary, when you know this your right would make sense to you.

Advanis Jeeni turns ghost

A debate at last. It has almost cost career of a tall leader to initiate discussion about the violent history of Indian partition and the parties responsible for it. Word Secularism often stretched to suit ones ideology is perhaps the -----of the understanding the religion and state. The secular idea of Gandhi was not secular to Nehru, his left friends, and Jinnah. So what is secularism and the role of religion in the society and the state. Secular state perhaps gave less space for religious discussions and interactions. When was the last time we in India had a discussion on various religious issues. In pre independent India religions flourished, fought against, learned and enriched each other. Best reformers were religious, drew inspirations from the words of Krishna and Christ. Ironically the secular India has only fought. So one need not be so proud of our secularism, we didn’t learn to accept other faiths after reading constitution, it doesn’t exist in our memory, it is for the most the creation of intellectuals who wanted to culture the primitive people with colonial band. Now about the jinnah, an atheist who took up the cause on religious basis which he perhaps thought was a legitimate demand for muslims. Perhaps he genuinely believed muslims might not find heaven in the kingdom of Ram. It doesn’t matter whether he his claim was right, people who call him a separatist or communal, would not dare call Dr Ambedkar, or Annadurai one, because it is politically incorrect. Jinnah found a strong ally in Ambedkar for his cause. Both thought Hinduism of Gandhi would suppress their people. Direct action and deliverance day are collateral to the grand design of political right. Well jinnah is not a great man perhaps not to the parallel of the greats of Gandhi and may be Ambedkar (the legitimacy of Ambedkar’s fight stems from the undisputed historical injustice and means he sought to fight), but one cannot dismiss his claim as his personal ambition to rule a state, he didn’t live long to see his country falling in to the theocrats. One can be sure if he had lived he would not have personally presided over this transformation.

Today we don’t have Gandhi amidst us, he is at best in our vocabulary to compare and condemn religious nationalism that we don’t appreciate. So no point talking bout him, for a simple reason we are not one, neither we want to be. Our cry for nonviolence is fear of death. Religion and caste are the fundamental identity for us, even if you are dalits it is, the fight is for equal rights not social isolation. If Pakistan was created on religious basis what about India, how did the political india emerged when it never existed before. Was it not Hinduism the rallying point of freedom movement? Can we forget the contribution made by vivekananda and Arya samaj towards freedom movement? What do we have common with other Indians, why do we fight for Kashmir and northeast? What common history do we share, never we were under one kingdom, if at all we have something in common in our heritage and it is vedic and non vedic heritages emerged in India enriched by the Brahmins of vedic and nonvedic culture. Some or many may not be part of this some may disown by citing our differences, all we have is just this then what is the glue that binds us. If dalits are different so are the Brahmins, Tamil iyers and other Brahmins don’t share gods and customs. If dalits are not hindus so are the Brahmins. We are trying to find answers to our limited understanding of questions. We are uncomfortable talking about violence during muslim rule, but never loose a chance to remind our self about our violent caste system. We need not judge 5000 year old civilization on one dimension. If people are capable of being slaves for 5000 years then it is not worth talking about them.

If Jinnah created bloody partition so did Indira Gandhi, jinnahs secular democratic state failed because Islam was not ready, when is islam is not ready, muslims cannot be ready. and viceversa. For the success of our democracy we should thank our people not the constitution writers, we have a tradition of religious tolerance if not social tolerance. Buddhas and veeras didn’t have to shed blood and fight wars. Of course there were murders but not like the one during the time of muslim rule or rather muslim foreign rulers. Murders are different from holocaust if I were to use this liberal word.

Let us give the religions its due share, India is not vedic nation today, but it is also not irreligious. May be our history is not so glorious but we need not be ashamed and hyper critical, others have bathed in blood.

Affirmative actions and merit

The raging controversy over the the increase of the reservation in IITs and IIMs. Coming days will see increased mercury. But the reactions are same, not surprising, Though the recommendation is to increase quota in all government funded universities, it is the IIT that caught the fire, :Judgments pronounced, it affects depending upon which part of LoC you are in. The arguments go like these.
It will bring down the quality of IITs, economic background should be the basis of reservation not the caste, reservation is the best affirmative step, it will frustrate children etc. We shall tackle each on its own merits.
Economic Conditions as basis of reservation: IITs and IIMs are far most subsidised institutes. My guess is very few would have opted out of IITs and IIMs because of financial problem. For poor all he needs is financial assistance, we do have exp where poor have made into iits and iims. A typical IITian is a middle class, and many would have availed loans.
But getting there is costly, parallel institutions run on shifts to assemble students to get into IITs and IIMs. The preparations starts at the 9th standard, and the real work for 12- 14 hrs for four long years. If at all one needs help it is here.
So reservation for poor? wont help.
IITs ensuring quality: Put Harvard, MIT and Princeton together, and you begin to get an idea of the status of this school in India." (Lesley Stahl, co-anchor on CBS 60 Minutes. Probably JEE,(Entrance for IIT) is the most difficult exams in the world. to give you the taste of task in 2002, in comparison with the 2.3 per cent of applicants who won admission to the IITs, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which are among the most selective undergraduate institutions in the U.S., admitted 10.5 per cent and 16.2 per cent of their undergraduate applicants.
The IITian
Typical IITian is a male middle class from upper caste. Women, SC and STs are rare specious. (girls inspite of topping school exams) The IITs currently have no reserved quotas except 15 per cent reservation of seats for S.C.s and 7.5 per cent reservation for S.T.s,(introduced in 70s) who are admitted on the basis of "relaxed criteria,'' and a very small number of seats for physically handicapped persons and children of defence or paramilitary personnel killed or disabled in action. Typically, seats in the S.C./S.T. quotas are offered straightaway to those who get at least two-thirds of the marks obtained by the last student admitted in the general category.
If this reserved quota is not filled, a limited number of S.C. and S.T. candidates who fail to meet the two-thirds criterion are admitted to a preparatory course and are required to go through a year of training. At the end of the course, these candidates are tested in physics, mathematics, chemistry and English and, upon achieving a certain cut-off, are admitted into the first year B.Tech. programme.
Equality Through Reservations, by Viney Kirpal and Meenakshi Gupta - both have taught Humanities at IIT, Bombay - is based on data collected from IIT students belonging to batches beginning 1989 to 1992. It says, 'During the period of data collection, there were approximately 5,868 general category students and 616 SC and ST students in the IITs' (49). Percentage-wise, this works out to 10.49 dalit and adivasi students out of the total intake - less than half the quota is being 'filled'.

And the current recommendation 27 % is for OBCs, it shouldnt be a problem filling up this. Almost all the quotas for OBS gets filled. And in the TNPCE diffirence in cut off mark between BC and FC are negligible, then why quota, to make sure that they do not loose by .1 marks i guess. Of course this quota will help only the upper crest of OBCs,

This rises two questions is merit alone the criterian for the country's progress. And has the quality helped us.
Merit of course yes, but producing 3000 meritorious student alone wont help the country in any way. Around 3 lacs students take JEE entrance this year, of this around 3000 get into it, just 1 %. The merit is determined by the number of seats available and the number of contestants. Say for example if we open another IIT or increase the intake in each iit, then the merit list would further come down, then are we going to say we should not have any more IITs and the numbers should be restricted. The competition today is far more than it was started, an average student works hard, knows more than his alumni, should we then conclude that todays students are brilliant than his alumni.
And again there is too much hype about merit. And the ranking alone doesn't constitute merit . Topper in IIT entrance need not always top IIT rank, academically topper need not always end up successful in career.. I have personally seen how reservation quota candidates in my college improved a lot by the time they finished the college, they may not be the best (considering their counterparts resources), it doesn't matter it is an investment in generation. An opportunity in the leading institutes, doesn't matter if they fail, doesnt matter if they dropout, doesn't matter if they are all against progress) is worth it.
As we will see, current quota system has not helped the underprivileged to that extend, it has not harmed the brahmins as well. No study suggests that their socio economic conditions have come down, in fact they have moved ahead found new ventures,challenges perhaps it made them more competitive( remember the bala paadam, we heard from our parents, never expect any favour from the govt, be on your own) . I am sure the increase in quota by any number will not affect us. The cost we pay is less than the benefit the society would accrue in future.
We need not be paronoid unless we are ghettoed. I dont think that would happen.
But does this quality help India. IIT alumni golden jubilee was celebrated in northern california US. This tells you most of what IITian aspiration. . The Economist (September 26, 2002) cited an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) survey that found that over 80 per cent of Indian students in the U.S. planned to stay on after the completion of their studies. The survey also revealed that Indians students were more likely to remain in the U.S. after higher studies than students from any other country.The study by Desai et. al., cited earlier, points out that the one million India-born currently living in the U.S. constitute a mere 0.1 per cent of India's population. However, they account for 10 per cent of India's national income. While these migrants might have earned lower salaries at home, they still represent lost tax income. Brand Equity (January 15, 2003), a supplement of The Economic Times, estimates that by a conservative valuation, IITians in the U.S. have a combined net worth of approximately $30 billion. Writing on India's recent overtures towards its 20 million-strong diaspora at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, Financial Times (January 18, 2002) noted that the net assets of non-resident Indians (NRIs) are "estimated at roughly a third of the $500 billion gross domestic product (GDP) of India's 1 billion people." The 2001 Human Development Report (HDR), published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), suggested that a high-end estimate of India's loss from the migration of software professionals, many of whom are IIT graduates, is as much as $2 billion a year.
country that loses workers often gains some income through remittances from these workers. However, unlike less skilled workers, highly educated professionals tend to account for little in terms of remittances.
The skilled are more likely to emigrate with their families and more easily integrate into their new country and, hence, are less likely to send back remittances. Skilled Indian professionals in the U.S. have also failed, by and large, to contribute large levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) required by India. In contrast, China, which along with India is the largest exporter of students to the U.S., has greatly benefited in this regard from its skilled emigrants. The Financial Times (January 18, 2003) noted that China "has managed to attract 10 times more FDI than India on the back of strong in-flows from the Chinese diaspora." In the final analysis, there is little doubt that India is a net loser from the migration of its best-educated brains. As The Economist suggested in an article on the brain drain (September 26, 2002) that "the loss of the skilled and educated may do more harm than emigration in general." The article added: "Their departure removes the stabilising political influence of a middle class. And the exodus of scientists and academics wreaks particular havoc, especially if it happens quickly." While benefits such as remittances and FDI inflow seem to accrue in some degree, it is hard to imagine that such contributions are capable of offsetting the tremendous potential tax and productivity loss caused to India by the brain drain.
But all is not lost, not only it has created naraya murthys it has contribute immensly to the social movement as well. The pradhan, is one such ex. Though those were MBAs many have IIT background. Today we see reverse migration happening.

Has it really helped: No one can deny the need to provide opportunity for the deprived class the share of justice. The question is how do we do it. We thought we would reserve seats in the higher education. Going by the Census 2001, the overall share of Graduates in the 20-24 age-group population in India is about 8 percent. Of the six categories into which the Census 2001 has classified the Indian population, the degree holders in the 20-24 age group account for only 2.3% of the total population in this age group among the Scheduled Tribes, 3.6% among the Scheduled Castes, 4% among the Muslims, 7.4 among the Buddhists, 7.6% among the Sikhs, 9.8% among the caste-Hindus (Hindus excluding the SCs and Sts). Have we made progress yes, but not to the our expectations.
Why we fail:India’s gross expenditure on education now, by the state and central governments combined, is nearly Rupees one lakh crore or 3.52 percent of the GDP. The Government of India’s spending on education is expected to double by next year and go up to three times by 2009-10, from the current level to Rupees 1.82 lakh crore first and Rupees 238,835 crore subsequently. Though the increase in spending will fulfil the promise of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance ruling at the Centre to allocate six percent of the GDP to education, it will still be a case of the little done and a lot undone [not done]. The spending on education by developed countries is much higher than both these figures (3.52% and 6%).
If the dropout and survival rates, and the literacy and illiteracy rates of the broad social categories are any indication, India has not done much for democratisation of access even at the primary level. Going by the Census 2001, India has about 41 million illiterates in the 7-13 age group, 16 million illiterates in the 14-17 age group, and 33 million illiterates in the 18-24 age group. The illiterates account for about 27%, 25%, and 35% respectively of the total population of the relevant age groups. Of those enrolled at the primary level, about 40% drop out by the time they reach the fourth year of schooling.
And for those who clamour for increase reservations.
Instead of seeing the problems in perspective, governance in India seems to be choosing cheap populist options. Though satisfying to the politicians, these options can do no good, and in the long run can do a lot of harm to the rising generation, in particular, the historically deprived social groups, which are still victims of entrenched backwardness.
The provision of reservation cannot benefit students from the deprived groups in a big way, though it may still be necessary. If reservation for more than fifty years in State-run institutions has not benefited them much.
We should not forget, that IITs are centres of excellence, should we have exclusive one can be debated. Getting there can be easy, but staying is difficult. May be we can tamper with the syllabus, to make it less stressful and more and more can pass, but it will no longer be IIT, if our demand for affirmative actions is to improve the quality of living standards, then it makes sense for all to preserve the quality of IITs and IIMS, if we are not but only interested in increasing our numbers then fate of IIT would be of todays school leaving certificate, the victim again will the less deprived. One big success story non reservation affirmative action is women, they never had reservation but their success is there for everybody to see. This was achieved, due to concerted effort to enroll women, in school,(girls school, colleges played an important role, consistent campaigns, and more concrete efforts to educate women.
If our action is just to deprive a brahmins their power, then anything is ok.
For political parties it is easy to increase reservation, it calls for effort,money, sincerity to invest in primary and secondary education. to improve the quality of public schools.

What can we do:
1. One possibility could be to encourage( which means govt support these institutions) private schools to increase their intake of SC ST students. Of course one can ask for compulsory reservation in these schools, but this may deprive the fundemental right to education for FCs unless if this is what we want.
2. Two Private Public school partnerships, where private schools lend managerial support to public schools.
3. There are a few NGOs work in this issue, like us, for instance, we select students from corporations schools put them in fast track. Good ex for such programme is by FAEA.

why this blog ???

why do people blog?, i have always resisted to write blogs out of modesty. what is there to say about anyway, is subjective opinions matter at all. is it arrogance to think the people really care about what i think or write. but writing is always not for others, it doesnt really matter who reads it. I think with writing comes responsibility, what i write is not a spontaneous response.