Most of us, including me, have very high regards for Mr. Narayan Murthy. He is considered visionary, intellectual, iconic face of Indian IT industry and leader. We should also appreciate his decision to give away his personal wealth to NGOs and fieldwork organisations. It is good that he decided to pen a book about his thoughts on India (A better India, A better world). I have not yet read the book yet but during his interview with IBN network he revealed some of his thoughts that are little difficult to understand in plural society of India.
First, he has recommended that most of the parliamentarian should be English speaking. I assume that he might give some more explanation on this issue later on. But if he really meant as it is then it is difficult to understand why he said so. Does he think that the non-English speaking legislators are less educated or competent than their English speaking counterparts? Forget about Hindi, why a Assamese, Tamil or Telugu speaking legislator not good for India? There is no theoretical proof or empirical evidence to support this kind of argument other than our obsession for British colonial mentality.
One can argue that the only advantage we have against China is our large English speaking populations. But, are we looking for only outsourcing work for our skilled population? Are we happy to listen that they are called slumdogs by Rush Limbaugh? This also goes without saying that we are so incompetent in doing anything else that our future growth is hinged to (IT) outsourcing work. China, Japan, South Korea, all of these countries have done very well in last 50 years. None of these countries have any support for English speaking population. I did not name France, Germany, Holland, in spite of the fact that they non-English speaking developed countries, because they were colonial ruler as well so they might not have English obsession.
It is not to say that I do not support English language education but I do not support obsession for English language at the expense of our regional languages that have been identified as national languages by our constitution. I did not say that I support English medium education. This is a very 'elite' concept and it is creating a separate class in our society. English medium educated are considered as educated but the rest are not in the same category.
Other issue that I find difficult to agree with is his idea to differentiate society into three classes. First masses (he calls them population with values), leaders and the elite. Why do we need a elite class? Why there can not be middle class people doing their jobs. This concept comes from the system of British colonial past where we had some ICS (now IAS) officers who will live in bungalow and have all the government-funded facilities. These are the people with lots of power but little money. To align their power status with their financial status, many a time they resort to corruption. This corruption may not always be in the form of bribe. It can be favor for fellow elites as well. As it happens. A babu (clerk) from electricity board get favorable treatment from babu in the telephone department in the expectation of getting favor in return.
No doubt, my criticism for some of his thoughts does not demean the commendable job he has done in writing the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your opinion is balanced and fair.
ReplyDelete