Seventh Issue
Vox Populi
Issue: 5
NEW RESERVATION POLICY IN IITs AND IIMs
Being a pro- or anti- US??
Issue: 5
NEW RESERVATION POLICY IN IITs AND IIMs
I am not totally against the proposed reservation for OBCs in IITs and IIMs. Given the proportion of OBCs in our population, “Reservation policy“ is not something “unthinkable“ and “unjustified.“ Rather than opposing it, we must make efforts to ensure the fair implementation of the policy so that deserving candidates can reap adequate benefits. At the same time, “more lasting solutions“ to the problems of empowerment and equal opportunity could be discussed widely and brought in at a later stage.
__________________________________________________Aditya U. Karnik
(MTech., AE, adityak@ )
(MTech., AE, adityak@ )
Though the merit of reservation is a debatable issue, in the present case, extending the reservations to IITs and IIMs is utterly regrettable, not because it is done with an eye on the vote bank and upcoming elections in some major states, but because it spells doom for meritocracy in the most reputed educational institutions in our country. If this reservation policy is employed, then 50% of the seats will be reserved and soon a time will come when about 80% of the seats will be reserved (including 30% for girls). No political party likes to take the risk to oppose this and the country is going to suffer as a consequence. Reservation is NOT a solution to the social inequalities, but another impediment...the problem is the law makers in our country are too self-centered to think of the country and its future.
At the outset, what I am certain is that reservation is not good for the health of society. The fundamental assumption underlying reservation is that it is to improve the status of deprived people and to bring them to the mainstream. There is reservation in primary secondary and higher education, which is very ineffective. Does this help? These instances clearly show that reservation in education is insufficient to empower the socially deprived. We must evolve better modalities to uplift the social status of the deprived than the so-called ‘reservation.' As far as its effect on the quality of IITs/IIMs is concerned, the existing standards cannot be maintained and the administration has to compromise either in quality or has to develop new/extended slow pace programs (like preparatory courses) for reserved categories. If we exclude political benefits from reservation, I hardly see anyone getting benefited from it.
Reservation
Aim: Intended aim was “positive discrimination“ to carry out a social revolution.
Perception: “Privileged classes“ (whatever that phrase means) rally on the false idea that reservation policy destroys merit; call it “merit syndrome.“
Outcome: Owing to red-tapism, official negligence and a lot of other factors, we could (would) not reach the aim through this mean of “positive discrimination.“
Suggestion: To use alternative methods of “positive discriminations,“ such as “Affirmative Action“ [visit:http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/] or any other.
It is difficult to comprehend the assumption that “hike“ in reservation in higher education will ensure the upliftment of the socially and economically deprived people. How can we assess the “merit“ of upper class and socially and economically backward people using the same scale? In fact, it will be the upper and middle class people within the backward community that will benefit leading to further marginalization and division of the community. 50% reservation in premier institutes won't change the lives of the deprived. Then what is the solution? Instead of “reservation,“ the focus should be at developing education, employment, agriculture etc. at grass root level. Moreover, it's high time for us to work towards an equal society where “merit“ can be defined in a more sensible way.
Sure. Good idea of 27 % reservation in IITs/IIMs. But why not 100%? Then, later we can have caste specific courses, teachers, staff, hostels, food… Long live the reservation… Screw the country! Who cares anyway! Imagine Hall-4 twenty years down the lane… renamed: Reserved Hall-4.
I belong to Madhya Pradesh, a state comprised of a number of villages, where as of today, there exists no facilities for higher education (10+2 and above). A small percentage of the people interested and motivated for higher education have to run / travel across miles to reach a school where even the quality of delivery of education is not up to the mark. To add further to the woes, most of the teachers in the remote villages remain ignorant towards their duties to deliver education and so does their selection process. Certainly enough, the candidate from such an area, does feel himself/herself to be deficient in competing with students coming from the developed areas and is obviously left behind. He/she goes out, therefore, as an educationally and technically deficient product.
As on date, the focus of the country's politicians and social development organizations, should be more towards developing the educational infrastructure. More incentives should be given to the people at tribal and underdeveloped areas to enable them to enhance their meritorial abilities. The country today, is talking of connecting all the rivers of India and the “infamous“ golden quadrilateral project, and no doubt deficient products would make roads and canals unworthy of reliability.
I remember an incident which happened back then in the early nineties, when a candidate from one of the reserved categories scored -1 (minus one) in the pre-engineering test and was selected, for admission to one of the Engineering Colleges. There was an obvious and consequent hue and cry then. The echoes of those cries, unfortunately, can still be heard. Reservation at technical institutes, therefore, cannot be supported.
The proposed reservation policy is not intended to address the problems faced by the economically and socially deprived classes of our society. Rather than concentrating on the real solutions to the problem such as proactive steps at the primary and secondary levels of education, the MHRD minister has chosen to play vote bank politics. This will only ruin the caste less nature of these institutions and will be a deplorable waste of nation's resources. But it is also a sad fact that many of the critics of the proposed policy are not willing to bear the cost of alternative solutions.
As a civilized human being it is rather difficult to accept the kind of folly proposal of the current Govt. to reserve seats up to 50% in IITs and IIMs only on the basis of the caste quota. This immature behaviour of the Govt. might agitate the amiable ambience in the premier institutes, leading to disparity among students. It's an ardent request to our democratically elected Govt. to bring to an end to such an issue, otherwise any form of enforcing such a “vague proposal“ will flare-up another furious controversy like “Mandal Commission.“
__________________________________________________Amarjeet Nayak
(PhD, HSS, amarjeet@ )
(PhD, HSS, amarjeet@ )
__________________________________________________
At the outset, what I am certain is that reservation is not good for the health of society. The fundamental assumption underlying reservation is that it is to improve the status of deprived people and to bring them to the mainstream. There is reservation in primary secondary and higher education, which is very ineffective. Does this help? These instances clearly show that reservation in education is insufficient to empower the socially deprived. We must evolve better modalities to uplift the social status of the deprived than the so-called ‘reservation.' As far as its effect on the quality of IITs/IIMs is concerned, the existing standards cannot be maintained and the administration has to compromise either in quality or has to develop new/extended slow pace programs (like preparatory courses) for reserved categories. If we exclude political benefits from reservation, I hardly see anyone getting benefited from it.
Ankur Verma
(PhD, CHE, ankurv@ )
(PhD, CHE, ankurv@ )
__________________________________________________
Reservation
Aim: Intended aim was “positive discrimination“ to carry out a social revolution.
Perception: “Privileged classes“ (whatever that phrase means) rally on the false idea that reservation policy destroys merit; call it “merit syndrome.“
Outcome: Owing to red-tapism, official negligence and a lot of other factors, we could (would) not reach the aim through this mean of “positive discrimination.“
Suggestion: To use alternative methods of “positive discriminations,“ such as “Affirmative Action“ [visit:http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/] or any other.
Anupam Gupta
(PhD, EE, anupamg@ )
(PhD, EE, anupamg@ )
__________________________________________________
It is difficult to comprehend the assumption that “hike“ in reservation in higher education will ensure the upliftment of the socially and economically deprived people. How can we assess the “merit“ of upper class and socially and economically backward people using the same scale? In fact, it will be the upper and middle class people within the backward community that will benefit leading to further marginalization and division of the community. 50% reservation in premier institutes won't change the lives of the deprived. Then what is the solution? Instead of “reservation,“ the focus should be at developing education, employment, agriculture etc. at grass root level. Moreover, it's high time for us to work towards an equal society where “merit“ can be defined in a more sensible way.
Prasanth TK
(PhD, AE, santh@ )
(PhD, AE, santh@ )
__________________________________________________
Sure. Good idea of 27 % reservation in IITs/IIMs. But why not 100%? Then, later we can have caste specific courses, teachers, staff, hostels, food… Long live the reservation… Screw the country! Who cares anyway! Imagine Hall-4 twenty years down the lane… renamed: Reserved Hall-4.
Srinath D.N.
(PhD, AE, srinath@ )
(PhD, AE, srinath@ )
__________________________________________________
I belong to Madhya Pradesh, a state comprised of a number of villages, where as of today, there exists no facilities for higher education (10+2 and above). A small percentage of the people interested and motivated for higher education have to run / travel across miles to reach a school where even the quality of delivery of education is not up to the mark. To add further to the woes, most of the teachers in the remote villages remain ignorant towards their duties to deliver education and so does their selection process. Certainly enough, the candidate from such an area, does feel himself/herself to be deficient in competing with students coming from the developed areas and is obviously left behind. He/she goes out, therefore, as an educationally and technically deficient product.
As on date, the focus of the country's politicians and social development organizations, should be more towards developing the educational infrastructure. More incentives should be given to the people at tribal and underdeveloped areas to enable them to enhance their meritorial abilities. The country today, is talking of connecting all the rivers of India and the “infamous“ golden quadrilateral project, and no doubt deficient products would make roads and canals unworthy of reliability.
I remember an incident which happened back then in the early nineties, when a candidate from one of the reserved categories scored -1 (minus one) in the pre-engineering test and was selected, for admission to one of the Engineering Colleges. There was an obvious and consequent hue and cry then. The echoes of those cries, unfortunately, can still be heard. Reservation at technical institutes, therefore, cannot be supported.
Suddhasheel Ghosh
(PhD, CE, shudh@ )
(PhD, CE, shudh@ )
__________________________________________________
The proposed reservation policy is not intended to address the problems faced by the economically and socially deprived classes of our society. Rather than concentrating on the real solutions to the problem such as proactive steps at the primary and secondary levels of education, the MHRD minister has chosen to play vote bank politics. This will only ruin the caste less nature of these institutions and will be a deplorable waste of nation's resources. But it is also a sad fact that many of the critics of the proposed policy are not willing to bear the cost of alternative solutions.
Tony Jacob
(PhD, EE, tjacob@ )
(PhD, EE, tjacob@ )
__________________________________________________
As a civilized human being it is rather difficult to accept the kind of folly proposal of the current Govt. to reserve seats up to 50% in IITs and IIMs only on the basis of the caste quota. This immature behaviour of the Govt. might agitate the amiable ambience in the premier institutes, leading to disparity among students. It's an ardent request to our democratically elected Govt. to bring to an end to such an issue, otherwise any form of enforcing such a “vague proposal“ will flare-up another furious controversy like “Mandal Commission.“
Tuhin Kumar Pal
(PhD, BSBE, tuhin@ )
(PhD, BSBE, tuhin@ )
Quote of the Week:
Benjamin Franklin
__________________________________________________Being a pro- or anti- US??
The question is phrased rather erroneously. It is not a question of my being pro- or anti-US, for the US as a country, is populated by nice, hard working, god fearing people. Like India is a country populated by good people, or Pakistan for that matter. The more apt phrasing of the question should be if I am pro- or anti-US politics... Or more precisely, if I am pro- or anti-George Bush Jr and his cowboy administration.
Now the question you have asked can be divided into two parts. Whether I consider the visit of President George Bush to India a good thing or not, and whether the Anti-Bush March in IITK was a farce, a sad attempt by a few left leaning pseudo-intellectuals whose hearts bleed at every real and imagined atrocity committed by the capitalist western powers on the helpless and the poor of the world.
To answer the first part of the question: I think Bush's visit to the subcontinent was part of his political strategy. India is a growing economy, a big market for American goods and a nice supplier of docile cheap clerical labor for its software industry. India is also the only Asian country that has the potential to challenge China in a military setting. Hence India's importance in the geo-political radar of the US: as a foil against the regional ambitions of China. So, from a distance it all appears as if the two countries are in love with each other as far as short term economic and political expediencies go.
However, I do have some misgivings. It is naïve to expect the US to help us reach the same status that it enjoys, both militarily as well as economically. I mean, think of a situation when instead of just China at the moment, the US being burdened with BOTH India and China as serious challengers to its world superpower status. It's just not compatible with "American Interests". Also, although I am not an expert on nuclear geopolitics, I have this nagging feeling that the nuclear deal that India and the US have signed this time round, is just the beginning of US interference in our nuclear program (civilian as well as military) – The first step to get India sign the NPT in its present discriminatory form.
Besides, one cannot help but remember that the worst of America's enemies were actually its bosom buddies not too long ago. Ethics is the last thing to matter when it comes to matters of politics, and equations keep changing all the time. But with a background of "friendships" as strong as that of the US, one shudders to think what might happen if something were to go wrong between the US and India. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. So lets make hay while the sun shines, but at the back of our minds, remember that there are no free lunches especially when the guy providing the lunches is the American President.
Now comes the question of the protest march in the campus: One of the major reasons for lack of support the Bush administration enjoys in a large section of the world population (both leftists and otherwise) is its dismal track record of human rights all over the world. From Afganistan to the erstwhile Yugoslavia to Iraq, the US seems to be more interested in resorting to often brutal military methods to implement its foreign policy than using good old diplomacy to sort out international conflicts. Its "sole-superpower" status has also led it to severely undermine the authority of the United Nations in almost every theater of war that it is involved in. The result is mass murder of innocent civilians in the name of "smoking out" terrorists. Brutal imposition of unfamiliar political systems with total disregard to regional traditions and political systems. Constant conflicts even after the "villains" are deposed/killed/murdered/driven away. The ultimate sufferers are the people of those countries.
One can easily ask, why should India be concerned about what's happening in the middle-east or Afghanistan or what just might happen in Latin America? Why should gross violation of human rights in distant countries bother us, when we have pressing problems of our own to deal with? Well, my reply to people who ask this question is "Because, at a personal level, it pains me to see innocent people getting murdered for no fault of theirs, all in the name of war on terror. I feel angry when I see sovereign nations being flattened, subjugated and humiliated by a bunch of criminals wearing expensive suits and sitting in posh offices far away talking in the language of spin fooling not only their own people but also most of the rest of the world into believing that "American Interests" are synonymous with the collective and individual interests of the rest of the world. I feel angry when I see that the rest of the world, including the land of the Mahatma sitting pretty watching the systematic rape of humanity and doing nothing about it. I feel frustrated when I see that the UN unable to stop this madness because its largest donor is the culprit. At a higher level, I think it is imperative for India to assert itself in international matters -- and it is important for India to do that on grounds of principle. Prostrating itself before the US will not help."
So in principle, the protest march was not too bad an idea. Whether it was successful or not is a different issue altogether, but the fact that there WERE people who decided to protest on grounds of principle is a good thing, only goes to show that "they" have not succeeded in turning everyone into brain-dead, moronic yes-men. If all those who participated in that march were left leaning pseudo-intellectuals whose hearts bleed at every real and imagined atrocity committed by the capitalist western powers on the helpless and the poor of the world, then I must say the situation is very unfortunate.
Now the question you have asked can be divided into two parts. Whether I consider the visit of President George Bush to India a good thing or not, and whether the Anti-Bush March in IITK was a farce, a sad attempt by a few left leaning pseudo-intellectuals whose hearts bleed at every real and imagined atrocity committed by the capitalist western powers on the helpless and the poor of the world.
To answer the first part of the question: I think Bush's visit to the subcontinent was part of his political strategy. India is a growing economy, a big market for American goods and a nice supplier of docile cheap clerical labor for its software industry. India is also the only Asian country that has the potential to challenge China in a military setting. Hence India's importance in the geo-political radar of the US: as a foil against the regional ambitions of China. So, from a distance it all appears as if the two countries are in love with each other as far as short term economic and political expediencies go.
However, I do have some misgivings. It is naïve to expect the US to help us reach the same status that it enjoys, both militarily as well as economically. I mean, think of a situation when instead of just China at the moment, the US being burdened with BOTH India and China as serious challengers to its world superpower status. It's just not compatible with "American Interests". Also, although I am not an expert on nuclear geopolitics, I have this nagging feeling that the nuclear deal that India and the US have signed this time round, is just the beginning of US interference in our nuclear program (civilian as well as military) – The first step to get India sign the NPT in its present discriminatory form.
Besides, one cannot help but remember that the worst of America's enemies were actually its bosom buddies not too long ago. Ethics is the last thing to matter when it comes to matters of politics, and equations keep changing all the time. But with a background of "friendships" as strong as that of the US, one shudders to think what might happen if something were to go wrong between the US and India. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. So lets make hay while the sun shines, but at the back of our minds, remember that there are no free lunches especially when the guy providing the lunches is the American President.
Now comes the question of the protest march in the campus: One of the major reasons for lack of support the Bush administration enjoys in a large section of the world population (both leftists and otherwise) is its dismal track record of human rights all over the world. From Afganistan to the erstwhile Yugoslavia to Iraq, the US seems to be more interested in resorting to often brutal military methods to implement its foreign policy than using good old diplomacy to sort out international conflicts. Its "sole-superpower" status has also led it to severely undermine the authority of the United Nations in almost every theater of war that it is involved in. The result is mass murder of innocent civilians in the name of "smoking out" terrorists. Brutal imposition of unfamiliar political systems with total disregard to regional traditions and political systems. Constant conflicts even after the "villains" are deposed/killed/murdered/driven away. The ultimate sufferers are the people of those countries.
One can easily ask, why should India be concerned about what's happening in the middle-east or Afghanistan or what just might happen in Latin America? Why should gross violation of human rights in distant countries bother us, when we have pressing problems of our own to deal with? Well, my reply to people who ask this question is "Because, at a personal level, it pains me to see innocent people getting murdered for no fault of theirs, all in the name of war on terror. I feel angry when I see sovereign nations being flattened, subjugated and humiliated by a bunch of criminals wearing expensive suits and sitting in posh offices far away talking in the language of spin fooling not only their own people but also most of the rest of the world into believing that "American Interests" are synonymous with the collective and individual interests of the rest of the world. I feel angry when I see that the rest of the world, including the land of the Mahatma sitting pretty watching the systematic rape of humanity and doing nothing about it. I feel frustrated when I see that the UN unable to stop this madness because its largest donor is the culprit. At a higher level, I think it is imperative for India to assert itself in international matters -- and it is important for India to do that on grounds of principle. Prostrating itself before the US will not help."
So in principle, the protest march was not too bad an idea. Whether it was successful or not is a different issue altogether, but the fact that there WERE people who decided to protest on grounds of principle is a good thing, only goes to show that "they" have not succeeded in turning everyone into brain-dead, moronic yes-men. If all those who participated in that march were left leaning pseudo-intellectuals whose hearts bleed at every real and imagined atrocity committed by the capitalist western powers on the helpless and the poor of the world, then I must say the situation is very unfortunate.
Subhabrata Pal,
PhD, BSBE, Shubho@
__________________________________________________PhD, BSBE, Shubho@
posted by Pratidhwani at
12:00 AM
|
0 comments
