Now its official...

As everybody knows there is a widespread protest on reservation issue. But nevertheless the government went ahead with the plan of implementing the reservation. The "intelligent" commitee have just now concluded to say "ok" for reservation.

Today I happened to read the resignation letter sent by Mr.Mehta, a knowledge commision member, who resigned recently expressing his displeasure over the "Reservation". I have posted the same here. The letter clearly brings focus on several issues.

Dear Prime Minister

I write to resign as Member-Convener of the National Knowledge Commission. I believe the Commission's mandate is extremely important, and I am deeply grateful that you gave me the opportunity to serve on it. But many of the recent announcements made by your government with respect to higher education lead me to the conclusion that my continuation on the commission will serve no useful purpose.

The Knowledge Commission was given an ambitious mandate to strengthen India's knowledge potential at all levels. We had agreed that if all sections of Indian society were to participate in and make use of the knowledge economy, we would need a radical paradigm shift in the way we thought of the production, dissemination and use of knowledge. In some ways this paradigm shift would have to be at least as radical as the economic reforms you helped usher in more than a decade ago. The sense of intellectual excitement that the commission generated stemmed from the fact that it represented an opportunity to think boldly, honestly and with an eye to posterity. But the government's recent decision (announced by Honorable Minister of Human Resource Development < http://www.indianexpress.com/story/4916._.html> on the floor of Parliament) to extend quotas for OBCs in central institutions, the palliative measures the government is contemplating to defuse the resulting agitation, and the process employed to arrive at these measures are steps in the wrong direction. They violate four cardinal principles that institutions in a knowledge based society will have to follow: they are not based on assessment of effectiveness, they are incompatible with the freedom and diversity of institutions, they more thoroughly politicise the education process, and they inject an insidious poison that will harm the nation's long-term interest.

These measures will not achieve social justice. I am as committed as anyone to two propositions. Every student must be enabled to realise his/her full potential regardless of financial or social circumstances. Achieving this aim requires radical forms of affirmative action. But the numerically mandated quotas your government is proposing are deeply disappointing, for the following reasons. First, these measures foreclose any possibility of more intelligent targeting that any sensible programme should require. For one thing, the historical claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the nature of the deprivations they face are qualitatively of a different order than those faced by Other Backward Castes, at least in North India. It is plainly disingenuous to lump them together in the same narrative of social injustice and assume that the same instruments should apply to both. It is for this reason that I advocated status quo for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes until such time as better and more effective measures can be found to achieve affirmative action for them.

Some have proposed the inclusion of economic criterion: this is something of an improvement, but does not go far enough. What we needed, Honorable Prime Minister, was space to design more effective mechanisms of targeting groups that need to be targeted for affirmative action. For instance, there are a couple of well-designed deprivation indexes that do a much better job of targeting the relevant social deprivations and picking out merit. The government's action is disappointing, because you have prematurely foreclosed these possibilities. In foreclosing these possibilities the government has revealed that it cares about tokenism more than social justice. It has sent the signal that there is no room for thinking about social justice in a new paradigm.

As a society we focus on reservations largely because it is a way of avoiding doing the things that really create access. Increasing the supply of good quality institutions at all levels (not to be confused with numerical increases), more robust scholarship and support programmes will go much further than numerically mandated quotas. When you assumed office, you had sketched out a vision of combining economic reform with social justice. Increased public investment is going to be central to creating access opportunities. It would be presumptuous for me to suggest where this increased public investment is going to come from, but there are ample possibilities: for instance, earmarking proceeds from genuine disinvestment for education will do far more for access than quotas. We are not doing enough to genuinely empower marginalised groups, but are offering condescending palliatives like quotas as substitute. All the measures currently under discussion are to defuse the agitation, not to lay the foundations for a vibrant education system. If I may borrow a phrase of Tom Paine's, we pity the plumage, but forget the dying bird.

Second, the measures your government is contemplating violate the diversity principle. Why should all institutions in a country the size of India adopt the same admissions quotas? Is there no room at all for different institutions experimenting with different kinds of affirmative action policies that are most appropriate for their pedagogical mission? How will institutions feel empowered? How will creativity in social justice programmes be fostered, if we continue with a "one size fits all" approach? Could it not be that some state institutions follow numerically mandated quotas, while others are left free to devise their own programmes? The government's announcement is deeply disappointing because it reinforces the cardinal weakness of the Indian system: all institutions have to be reduced to the same level.

Third, and related to diversity, is the question of freedom. As an academic I find it to be an appalling spectacle when a group of ministers is empowered to come up with admissions policies, seat formulas for institutions across the country. While institutions have responsibilities and are accountable to society, how will they ever achieve excellence and autonomy if basic decisions like who they should teach, what they should teach, how much they should charge are uniformly mandated by government diktat? As you know, more than anyone else, the bane of our education institutions is that politicians feel free to hoist any purpose they wish upon them: their favourite ideology, their preferred conception of social justice, their idea of representativeness, or their own men and women. Everything else germane to a healthy academic life and effective pedagogy becomes subordinate to these purposes. Concerned academics risked a good deal, battling the previous government's instrumental use of educational institutions for ideological purposes. Though your objectives are different, your government is sending a similar message about our institutions: in the final analysis, they are playthings for politicians to mess around with. Nations are not built by specific programmes, they are built by healthy institutions, and the process by which your government is arriving at its decisions suggests contempt for the autonomy and integrity of academic life. Your government has reinforced the very paradigm of the state's relations with educational institutions that has weakened us.

In this process, the arguments that have been coming from your government are plainly disingenuous. It is true that a constitutional amendment was hastily passed to overturn the effects of the Inamdar decision. At the time I had written that the decision was property rights decision that was trying to unshackle private institutions from an overbearing state. But since the state had already displaced its responsibilities to the private sector it decided that the ramifications of Inamdar would be too onerous and passed a constitutional amendment. One can quibble over whether this amendment was justified or not. But even in its present form it is only an enabling legislation. It does not require that every public institution has numerically mandated quotas for OBCs. To hear your government consistently hiding behind the pretext of the constitutional amendment is yet another example of how we are foreclosing the fine distinctions that any rigorous approach to access and excellence requires.

Finally, I believe that the proposed measures will harm the nation's vital interests. It is often said that caste is a reality in India. I could not agree more. But your government is in the process of making caste the only reality in India. Instead of finding imaginative solutions to allow us to transcend our own despicable history of inequity, your government is ensuring that we remain entrapped in the caste paradigm. Except that now by talking of OBCs and SC/STs in the same narrative we are licensing new forms of inequity and arbitrariness.

The Knowledge Economy of the twenty-first century will require participation of all sections of society. When we deprive any single child, of any caste, of relevant opportunities, we mutilate ourselves as a society and diminish our own possibilities. But, as you understand more than most, globalisation requires us to think of old objectives in new paradigms: the market and competition for talent is global, institutions need to be more agile and nimble, and there has to be creativity and diversity of institutional forms if a society is to position itself to take advantage the Knowledge Economy. I believe that the measures your government is proposing will inhibit achieving both social justice and economic well-being.

I write this letter with a great deal of regret. In my colleagues on the Knowledge Commission you will find a group that is unrivalled in its dedication, commitment and creativity, and I hope you will back them in full measure so that they can accomplish their mission in other areas. I assure you that the commission's functioning will suffer no logistical harm on account of my departure.

I recognise that in a democracy one has to respectfully accede to the decisions of elected representatives. But I also believe that democracies are ill-served if individuals do not frankly and publicly point out the perils that certain decisions may pose for posterity. I owe it to public reason to make my reasons for resigning public. I may be wrong in my judgment about the consequences of your government's decisions, but at this juncture I cannot help concluding that what your government is proposing poses grave dangers for India as a nation. On this occasion I cannot help thinking about the anxieties of a man who knew a thing or two about constitutional values, who was more rooted in politics than any of us can hope to be, and who understood the distinction between statesmanship and mere politics: Jawaharlal Nehru. He wrote, "So these external props, as I may call them, the reservations of seats and the rest, may possibly be helpful occasionally, but they produce a false sense of political relation, a false sense of strength, and, ultimately therefore, they are not so nearly important as real educational, cultural and economic advance which gives them inner strength to face any difficulty or opponent." Since your government continues to abet a politics of illusion, I cannot serve any useful purpose by continuing on the Knowledge Commission under such circumstances.

Mehta

Though the government didnt change its stand, the protest are not completely useless. The issue of reservation has brought a new set of people into the arena of Politics, who till now were complacent on the National issues, they are none other than the student community. This community have the physical strength and the mental ability and are more impulsive then any other segment of the society.

The Indian politicians have lit the fire on this vast till now mute community. Days are not far before the fire engulfs them......

Does reservation really help?

I happened to read the transcript of Mr.Arjun Singh interview in Devil`s advocate.

The answers which he gave is truly appalling. Even the basic question of why there should be reservation, is not clearly answered.

HRD minister, a politician in his late 80s is stammering to the basic question. The main point which he brings to focus is, people who belong to backward community are way behind the race and hence he says reservation is the only way to get them into the forward foot.

My question is, are OBCs really backward that they need this quota system in place? Atleast in TN (a decent performing state in India), the place where I come from, if this rule is implemented, then around 60% of the population will be entitled to use this quota.

Most people agree to the below facts

• The present quota is introduced for increasing thier vote bank.
• Reservation for SC/STs has not done much to the real people who deserve it.
• And not even a single politician has come forward to address, when they are planning to get rid of reservation.

A amicable soultion for the upliftment of the people who really need it without compromising the standard of the presitigious institution is the need for the hour....

Will the present day politicians would be able to give an answer, only time has to tell.......

Is this what is called as Globalization?

This morning I had a call from my parents. My mom who is usually not bothered much about the social affires suprisingly said she is worried about the fall in BSE index yesterday.

Thats when I realized the deep impact of globalization in India. The credit should go to the present PM of India Dr.Manmohan Singh supposedly the pricipal architect of Indian economy.

Dude you took Indians to the global arena....

Genghis Khan-A Great Warrior -----> Present Day Indian Politics

Yesterday I read an article about the "Genghis Khan- A Great Warrior" on National Geographic magazine.

I will digress about some of the facts that happened to be interesting for me about Genghis Khan, from a phisophical point of view. Though I should caution the reader that I am not a great philosopher, yet I take this oppurtunity to use my meagre wit in philosophy to do a comparison.

Genghis Khan was a great warrior during the 12th century. Any king showing a slight hint of opposition will be vanquished. He conquered the whole of central asia from China to the start of eastern europe. He looted all the wealth of the kingdoms which he conquered. He didnt leave any people to survive neither the king nor the people who were in the Kingdom which he conquered.

Now after giving a "brief note" on the formidable Genghis Khan, the question is "How come, such a great country Mongolia which gave a Great warrior Genghis Khan is now not even spoken about in the present day world ?".

"The biggest conquest in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan."

--- Michael H. Hart's on "list of the most influential people in history"

It is a tough question to answer, though one might give several reasons from a economic point of view, I feel Genghis Khan- the king never understood what are the duties of a king, though to conquer a kingdom and winning a battle with tactics is an important task for a king, more to that it is more important to win the hearts of the people in the land which he conquered.

Genghis Khan on the contray was more involved in killing the people in foreign land. The statistics on the number of people he would have killed was astounding. He never bothered about the value of life. People who survived such attacks often quote "Blood flowed everywhere after he rampaged the kingdom".

Thus, though he was a great warrior of yester years, he often misunderstood the duties of a king. He failed to win the hearts of the people which he conquered, leading to eventual failure of the Great Mongolian Kingdom----The Present day Mongolia.The act of barbarism lead to an eventual failure of the kingdom as fast as it grew.

What relavence this story has in Indian politics, the main aim for any political body should be to win the hearts of the people through ethical means. Even if you succed in acheiving the throne by other means but in a long term the party is bound to fall.

One might say, this is a common logic and everyone knows about it....what is new in it? The answer is, the things which seems to be very common are the ones which are totally forgotten to be implemented.

Election Results in TN - A Review

Everbody knows that the real winner in TN elections was not JJ or MK, it was V. The reasons will be clear later. Before going into details about Mr.V faction, a small prologue about the EC and the activities which it had carried out during this election.

In the recent elections the EC website had extensive details on the list of candidates who are contesting and their material possesions. Everything were available in the website, you had to click the constituency and then the details of the list of candiates who had filed thier nominations and their movable and immovable properties which were declared by the candiadates are shown. This was really amazing and for sure I can say that EC is/was doing good work.

Now after saying this, what was very surprising and interesting was the fact that the EC gives details on the vote secured by each candidate. Though this information was available earlier, to make a comparsion between different parties in a state was not that easy. Now with this information, a party can easily make out their + and - ives. From this information, it was widely spoken that in TN, the clear winner was Mr.Vijakanth faction and not the dravidian parties.

This is mainly beacuse, his party came 3rd in most of the constituencies keeping other bigger parties (in some cases DMK, ADMK, BJP!!!!) at bay.

Ok, after saying this that the clear winner was Mr.V, the interesting question is "How his party managed to contest in all 240 seats (to contest in all constituencies, there should be atleast 50-100 crores) when not even a single party in TN, even the dravidian party was not able to do that?"

This question always disturbs me....Before the "time" leads us to the answer, let me express what I think about this..(the next few sentences are opinion of my own) What if, Mr.V and MK felt that Mr.V party will separate the vote bank of AIADMK and not of DMK. So, there can be chances that MK and Mr.V had a secret pact and MK funded Mr.V and made him to contest in all constituencies and thereby AIADMK vote was split, making the DMK & Co winner.

So the conclusion is MK might have given money to Mr.V leading to the split in ADMK vote bank. There are high chances that this might have happened, as to contest in all constituencies for a fresh party is next to impossible unless he is "Sultan of Brunei". To make people work for him and spending money for party cadres is very much necessary to keep the party alive.

Da Vinci Code

After a long time, I cant prevent this from happening. Yes..I started to write my blog on my favorite subject--The Politics (atleast for now).

This happened because back in India, the politics is reaching new lows. After reading the "Da Vinci Code News", I was really frustrated on the way the scenario is seen in India.

The author of Da Vinci Code is a Christain and the producer/director/actor of the movie are Christians and above all, Italy supposedly the heaven for Roman Catholics didnt restrict the movie. Why on earth are these Indian Politicians making a fuss about it? A question where you cant find an answer...but atleast for now one can say.. "Height of Minority appeasement"