1500 IIT teachers went on hunger strike on 24th September. On the face they are raising the issue on par pay scale with DRDO and ISRO. But it all seems about the money. I can see point here. Some of the faculty members who have started working after 1980s and particularly 1990s find that they left behind in the money earning process. They imagine themselves as Narayan Murthy and Azim Premjee. What hurts these teachers most is that the students are getting higher salary than them. Do they consider that these students are going for temporary jobs in a field, particularly IT and investment banking, that they might not like do spend their life in? Starting salaries might be good but the upper range rarely goes beyond Rs 20 lakhs in India. These students have to work on the projects that their company gets. There is no freedom as IIT professors have in research.
This hunger strikes projects the IITs as if the teachers are not paid at all. IIT teachers are not starving at all. They get many facilities those are not available to UGC professors. One of the benefit of joining IITs is that career graph moves very fast. One becomes professor from assistant professor in less than 10 years. In UGC it might take upto 20 years to become professor. Is this not a better deal than the UGC professors? There is very little publication by the UGC teachers. Does this mean they are lower grade researcher? Answer will be NO. The biggest problem for a UGC teacher is the facilities. They do not have access to high speed Internet. They do not have access to science journal and online members-only databases. IIT professors get access to all the resources by default.
There is no direct comparison between the IIT professors and a UGC professor. One should not try to make fool by discussing the basic salary only. NO UGC professor gets Rs 4 lakhs for research expenses every three year. It is weird and unfair to compare salaries. There is no dearth of new students trying to join IITs as professors on current pay scale. IITs selection criteria is so strict and far from practicality that only a few are able to join there. After spending 4-5 years in foreign countries a large number of students long to go back to India. They do not find an institute with decent research facilities so they decide to stay away. Very rarely I have seen a Phd student talking about lower pay in IITs as a cause of not joining there.
They need to realise that they are the best paid public servant in the country. Yes, public servant. IITs are funded by the government. If they can raise money for their operations then they can think of any salary as in corporate. They will be measured for their performance every quarter as is done corporate. If corporate life was so easy then a large number of teachers would have not come into teaching at the first place.
Face the reality. Teaching is a profession by choice and not compulsion.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Three language formula needs rethinking
Mr. Kapil Sibal has big agenda as Union HRD minister or he wants to remain in the news for one or the other reason. After scraping the compulsory 10th board exam, now he is taking dig at an old controversial issue. Issue of having one national language - Hindi. When he says that Hindi should be promoted throughout the country then he is not doing anything wrong or unconstitutional. Constitution of India says that the language - Hindi - should be promoted by the state but it never says that Hindi should be imposed on the people. But Mr. Sibal wants all schools in the country to teach Hindi.
A large number of 'elite' people have started supporting that there should be only one language in the country as it is in China, Italy, Germany and France etc. The argument goes further to get support from the economist. Single-language-supporters argue that single language will promote free movement of people and there will be more skilled workers will be available and the workers will have more opportunities in the country. Invariably this single language turns out to be English because it gives jobs to the 'elite' class in all the multinationals. But the argument of mobility is baseless as language is not the only hurdle why people do not go to different region in search of work. It is the connection with the culture, language, society that stops mobility. Will we tomorrow impose single-food-habit rule all over the country? Every one should eat Chai-samosa or idli-vada or vada pav only depending on what the HRD minister likes. It is complete non-sense.
What he has proposed or initiated is the three language formula that became part of 1968 national education policy. It was an compromised formula because it was difficult (or nearly impossible) to enforce Hindi all over India. The policy-makers came with this idea of three languages. The deal was that the Hindi-speaking people will also learn one other Indian language (preferably south Indian). It never happened. No one ever imagined that the students in Haryana studying Tamil or in Panjab studying Bodo or Khasi. It was thought that Hindi is the national language and superior to other languages so Hindi speaking people did not need to learn other Indian language. This arrogant attitude of hindi-speaking people has done more harm to Hindi proliferation than anything. South Indian states have become more adamant to introduce Hindi in their states.
In my opinion if there needs to be three languages then the first language needs to be mother tongue or as close to it as possible. It has been found that the mother tongue is the best for learning. Philippines has introduced mother-tongue based primary education in the country that is supported by UNESCO. Similar opinion is also building in Kenya. Second language should be from a pool of national languages. It is not possible to have all the languages in this option but it should cover as many as possible. It should be a mandatory course from class sixth (primary education) onwards. Now when there is no pressure to pass the class 10th board why not introduce third language at class 9th or 10th? This language can be any foreign language including English. Anyone who is not looking for international career does not necessarily need to study English anyway. Point is necessarily but if someone wants s/he can. And also most of the career starts after at least bachelors degree that gives good five years to master the language that is good enough to learn a language.
This formula gives freedom to learn whatever language students wants or like rather than forcing a language for dubious reason (national integration). We do not need to speak same language for national integration. A Tamil or Malyalam or Nagaland feels equally India as anyone speaking Hindi feels about. A same language speaking person can also be foreign agent, militant or molester. Language can not change one's character or feelings.
A large number of 'elite' people have started supporting that there should be only one language in the country as it is in China, Italy, Germany and France etc. The argument goes further to get support from the economist. Single-language-supporters argue that single language will promote free movement of people and there will be more skilled workers will be available and the workers will have more opportunities in the country. Invariably this single language turns out to be English because it gives jobs to the 'elite' class in all the multinationals. But the argument of mobility is baseless as language is not the only hurdle why people do not go to different region in search of work. It is the connection with the culture, language, society that stops mobility. Will we tomorrow impose single-food-habit rule all over the country? Every one should eat Chai-samosa or idli-vada or vada pav only depending on what the HRD minister likes. It is complete non-sense.
What he has proposed or initiated is the three language formula that became part of 1968 national education policy. It was an compromised formula because it was difficult (or nearly impossible) to enforce Hindi all over India. The policy-makers came with this idea of three languages. The deal was that the Hindi-speaking people will also learn one other Indian language (preferably south Indian). It never happened. No one ever imagined that the students in Haryana studying Tamil or in Panjab studying Bodo or Khasi. It was thought that Hindi is the national language and superior to other languages so Hindi speaking people did not need to learn other Indian language. This arrogant attitude of hindi-speaking people has done more harm to Hindi proliferation than anything. South Indian states have become more adamant to introduce Hindi in their states.
In my opinion if there needs to be three languages then the first language needs to be mother tongue or as close to it as possible. It has been found that the mother tongue is the best for learning. Philippines has introduced mother-tongue based primary education in the country that is supported by UNESCO. Similar opinion is also building in Kenya. Second language should be from a pool of national languages. It is not possible to have all the languages in this option but it should cover as many as possible. It should be a mandatory course from class sixth (primary education) onwards. Now when there is no pressure to pass the class 10th board why not introduce third language at class 9th or 10th? This language can be any foreign language including English. Anyone who is not looking for international career does not necessarily need to study English anyway. Point is necessarily but if someone wants s/he can. And also most of the career starts after at least bachelors degree that gives good five years to master the language that is good enough to learn a language.
This formula gives freedom to learn whatever language students wants or like rather than forcing a language for dubious reason (national integration). We do not need to speak same language for national integration. A Tamil or Malyalam or Nagaland feels equally India as anyone speaking Hindi feels about. A same language speaking person can also be foreign agent, militant or molester. Language can not change one's character or feelings.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Congress' austerity drive is meaningless
A newspaper reported that one cabinet minister SM Krishna and his junior minister Shashi Tharoor were living in five star hotels. Congress high command that is promoting her slogan 'congress ka hath, aam aadmi ke sath' felt embarrassed to learn this (It is surprising that they did not know this for last 100 days until it was reported in media). Quickly, finance minister ordered them to vacate their five star life and stay in their respective state houses. Mr. Shashi Tharoor gave argument that the state house in the capital does not provide privacy and gym so he can not live there. Both of the ministers also argued that they were paying from their pocket for their luxurious life in hotels. It went unheard by the party high command.
Party took extreme steps and has asked all the minister to travel by economy class and let their 20% salary go to public fund. Both these measures are laughable. At the first place when the ministers or even MPs are allowed by the law (compensation approved by parliament) to travel first class in the train then why should they travel economy class? Second, will this really save any significant money for the exchequer? A large expense on the minister is their security. mayawati is using over 300 policemen round the clock for her security. Every minister carries a number of security cars and ambulance with their convoy wherever they go. It is also reported when Sonia Gandhi travelled economy class then a number of seated were kept vacant around her. This adds to the cost anyway. Where is the real saving? On top of this it creates more inconvenience for the common men. I will be afraid to travel from a station where a big politician is supposed to travel from. It is risky and also police will be too alert and check everyone and too much. Common men will not be allowed to walk freely. All in the name of security measures.
MPs do not have very high (direct) salaries in India. When the Congress party ask for 20% from their salary (will be less than Rs. 10,000) it is meager amount in comparison to total expenses on them. MPs or minister earns bigger amount by passing the contracts for their loyal people and relatives. That is where they earn multi-millions. Common people do not need to see what these leaders are doing in Delhi. They know their local MPs better. Forget about MP. If one becomes MLA then s/he become rich enough in five years. They have their new businesses and bigger houses. What can MP do (earn) it any one's guess. Except a few (like Mamta Benerjee and Narendra Modi), it is hard to believe from their lifestyle that politicians are earning from legitimate sources only.
But it not the politicians only, people of India also wants to see their politicians and leaders to lead superior life than themselves. People expect they have to queue for hours and the rich and politician will go through quickly. People do not protest. They accept and expect this discrimination. No one but they themselves can help them.
Party took extreme steps and has asked all the minister to travel by economy class and let their 20% salary go to public fund. Both these measures are laughable. At the first place when the ministers or even MPs are allowed by the law (compensation approved by parliament) to travel first class in the train then why should they travel economy class? Second, will this really save any significant money for the exchequer? A large expense on the minister is their security. mayawati is using over 300 policemen round the clock for her security. Every minister carries a number of security cars and ambulance with their convoy wherever they go. It is also reported when Sonia Gandhi travelled economy class then a number of seated were kept vacant around her. This adds to the cost anyway. Where is the real saving? On top of this it creates more inconvenience for the common men. I will be afraid to travel from a station where a big politician is supposed to travel from. It is risky and also police will be too alert and check everyone and too much. Common men will not be allowed to walk freely. All in the name of security measures.
MPs do not have very high (direct) salaries in India. When the Congress party ask for 20% from their salary (will be less than Rs. 10,000) it is meager amount in comparison to total expenses on them. MPs or minister earns bigger amount by passing the contracts for their loyal people and relatives. That is where they earn multi-millions. Common people do not need to see what these leaders are doing in Delhi. They know their local MPs better. Forget about MP. If one becomes MLA then s/he become rich enough in five years. They have their new businesses and bigger houses. What can MP do (earn) it any one's guess. Except a few (like Mamta Benerjee and Narendra Modi), it is hard to believe from their lifestyle that politicians are earning from legitimate sources only.
But it not the politicians only, people of India also wants to see their politicians and leaders to lead superior life than themselves. People expect they have to queue for hours and the rich and politician will go through quickly. People do not protest. They accept and expect this discrimination. No one but they themselves can help them.
Monday, September 14, 2009
End of Jet Airways strike is a relieve for Air passengers
Unannounced (and probably unplanned) mass leave by the Jet airways pilots left thousands of passengers to face the problem. The pilots and the company management, both, had shown quite resistant before coming to compromise for the settlement. The pilots had done nothing wrong in forming or joining a pilot union but perhaps they do not need one. Pilots in India are highly paid (a large number of them in dollars) because of sudden and exponential growth of the airlines in the country. Pilots are scarce in India and all the companies need to recruit foreign pilots to satisfy the expansion plans.
Jet airways is already an international airline (with a substantial presence in domestic market though) and it has very high level of service standard. It is surprising that the management took too narrow view to block the pilots from forming the union. These pilots are already highly paid what else they can demand even if they have union? Whatever they want can still be discusses in an amicable way with the union. In united Kingdom, unions are helping the companies in reducing the wages and making extra staff redundant. If management genuinely try to do it best then union should not be much worry for the management.
On the other hand, there was no way for the pilots to get sympathy from anyone. They are highly paid so the labour ministry has no incentive to support them. At a time when the aviation industry worldwide is struggling with lower demand and recession every employee is supposed to help their organisation in performing better. But the pilots just went on mass leave. Jet airways has lost almost 200 crore rupees because of disruption of the services and even the biggest lost is the lost of the brand image and customer trust. The company is offering 50% discount on the flights for next five days to attract for customers but any customer who has suffered in last week will think twice before flying again with Jet airways.
Jet airways needs to work harder to regain the lost customer trust. If the customer service is good and flights are punctual then it will be easier to regain the lost trust. It is quite a uphill task and need lot of effort from the management, pilots and the ground staff.
Jet airways is already an international airline (with a substantial presence in domestic market though) and it has very high level of service standard. It is surprising that the management took too narrow view to block the pilots from forming the union. These pilots are already highly paid what else they can demand even if they have union? Whatever they want can still be discusses in an amicable way with the union. In united Kingdom, unions are helping the companies in reducing the wages and making extra staff redundant. If management genuinely try to do it best then union should not be much worry for the management.
On the other hand, there was no way for the pilots to get sympathy from anyone. They are highly paid so the labour ministry has no incentive to support them. At a time when the aviation industry worldwide is struggling with lower demand and recession every employee is supposed to help their organisation in performing better. But the pilots just went on mass leave. Jet airways has lost almost 200 crore rupees because of disruption of the services and even the biggest lost is the lost of the brand image and customer trust. The company is offering 50% discount on the flights for next five days to attract for customers but any customer who has suffered in last week will think twice before flying again with Jet airways.
Jet airways needs to work harder to regain the lost customer trust. If the customer service is good and flights are punctual then it will be easier to regain the lost trust. It is quite a uphill task and need lot of effort from the management, pilots and the ground staff.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Does India need (fake) encounters to deal with terrorists?
These days there is increasing focus on the encounters in different states. Public becomes very much outrageous when the news of encounter of MBA student in Dehradun comes or the report of fake (?) encounter of Ishrat Jahan becomes public. There are four different scenarios in any encounter that need to be understand before making any opinion otherwise the whole debate on encounter killing is meaningless.
There is encounter or fake encounter (staged operation) and there is a target. The target can be a dreaded terrorist or an innocent. Everyone agrees that any innocent should not be killed in any encounter (fake or genuine). What is debatable is whether police force should have power to kill a terrorist or any other anti-social element without trying to bring them before the court of law? Human right activist and some other civic value supporters want to abolish encounter at all. This is very ideal situation and is perfect when everything works as it should. But it is not pragmatic. When the criminal cases drags for years in the court and there is no hope of solving the cases in future either then how can one trust the court? It is not that the judiciary does not try to solve the cases but there is too much work in the courts and also the investigating agencies do not provide proper documents quickly. Even after 2o years case of Bofors bribery is not solved, one year has passed Indian government has not provided any concrete evidence against 26/11 terrorist, even daud ibrahim will get bail eventually because CBI will not be able to provide all evidence against him at the time. It took decades to find and kill sandal wood bandit Veerapan when he was not living far from habitat.
Should the police force let these well-known anti-social elements walk free on bail from court and let them continue there activities and wipe out the evidence against them and kill the witnesses or kill them in encounter even if it is fake? General consensus is police should be aloud to kill them as soon as they are captured. This consensus gives extra-ordinary power to police, directly, and politicians, indirectly. Many of the so-called encounter specialists have been convicted of extortion and working on behest of someone. And using this extra-ordinary power they have killed many innocent people sometime to please someone and sometime under pressure to solve some criminal cases quickly.
As the consensus supports existence of encounter, the misuse of this extra-ordinary power develops the need for proper and independent monitoring of these encounters. There is currently system in place for the enquiry after each encounter but it is not efficient and there are cover up to protect the fellow police officers. This needs to be abolished. Any police officer found guilty of encounter of innocent people should be punished without showing any leniency. When these police officers will be punished for the crime they commit, public faith will be restored in the police and encounter will become non-debatable issues.
There is encounter or fake encounter (staged operation) and there is a target. The target can be a dreaded terrorist or an innocent. Everyone agrees that any innocent should not be killed in any encounter (fake or genuine). What is debatable is whether police force should have power to kill a terrorist or any other anti-social element without trying to bring them before the court of law? Human right activist and some other civic value supporters want to abolish encounter at all. This is very ideal situation and is perfect when everything works as it should. But it is not pragmatic. When the criminal cases drags for years in the court and there is no hope of solving the cases in future either then how can one trust the court? It is not that the judiciary does not try to solve the cases but there is too much work in the courts and also the investigating agencies do not provide proper documents quickly. Even after 2o years case of Bofors bribery is not solved, one year has passed Indian government has not provided any concrete evidence against 26/11 terrorist, even daud ibrahim will get bail eventually because CBI will not be able to provide all evidence against him at the time. It took decades to find and kill sandal wood bandit Veerapan when he was not living far from habitat.
Should the police force let these well-known anti-social elements walk free on bail from court and let them continue there activities and wipe out the evidence against them and kill the witnesses or kill them in encounter even if it is fake? General consensus is police should be aloud to kill them as soon as they are captured. This consensus gives extra-ordinary power to police, directly, and politicians, indirectly. Many of the so-called encounter specialists have been convicted of extortion and working on behest of someone. And using this extra-ordinary power they have killed many innocent people sometime to please someone and sometime under pressure to solve some criminal cases quickly.
As the consensus supports existence of encounter, the misuse of this extra-ordinary power develops the need for proper and independent monitoring of these encounters. There is currently system in place for the enquiry after each encounter but it is not efficient and there are cover up to protect the fellow police officers. This needs to be abolished. Any police officer found guilty of encounter of innocent people should be punished without showing any leniency. When these police officers will be punished for the crime they commit, public faith will be restored in the police and encounter will become non-debatable issues.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Indian politicians and statue building need regulation
There is no simple answer as 'Yes' or 'No' to this issue, particularly when it is made an issue. In recent times, Mayawati has taken this cause of statue building very seriously. In india, or in any part of the world, statue building of their icons has been a tradition. So why are we so much concerned and worried about the public funds when Mayawati does this?
One of the arguments against anti-Mayawati statue fever is that she is using public funds for her personal statues and glorification. When so and so many people are dying of hunger, there is no electricity in villages, no roads and no education then how come she spends hundreds of crore on these memorials? In fact when the arguments is taken further then some of the intellectuals question even the purpose of building Shivaji Maharaj's memorial in sea-bed in Mumbai. Or by same logic statues of Nehru, Gandhi, YSR, Karunanidhi or any other politician.
This argument does not stand any logic. When farmers are dying or committing suicide then we have space program and building nuclear weapons. These are expensive programs. We spend hundreds of crore on military budget. If one things is not working properly then we can not cut budget for the other. If the farmers are committing suicide, it is because of the inefficiency in the public distribution system and other corruptions in the bureaucracy and not because of space program or statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Mumbai. We needs statues, we need memorials to conserve and show our heritage, culture and whatever political agenda.
But the biggest question is which way to go? In my opinion, there is a need to setup and independent and autonomous commission or authority to develop and enforce guidelines on such projects. There should be non-ambiguous criteria when and how much public fund can be spent on statue building or any other so-called cultural projects. The total budget for such projects should not ever exceed a prescribed percentage of the total budget of state or the center. And in any case it should not be more than the budget of ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) budget. ASI has bigger role and responsibility to play in India than these new projects.
Unless such regulations are in place politicians of every party will continue to exploit the loophole in the system and get cabinet's approval for any project. Even the court is helpless when there is no law to stop these projects. Building statues does not violet any current law. We first need law to make this statue building exercise auditable under some strict guidelines.
One of the arguments against anti-Mayawati statue fever is that she is using public funds for her personal statues and glorification. When so and so many people are dying of hunger, there is no electricity in villages, no roads and no education then how come she spends hundreds of crore on these memorials? In fact when the arguments is taken further then some of the intellectuals question even the purpose of building Shivaji Maharaj's memorial in sea-bed in Mumbai. Or by same logic statues of Nehru, Gandhi, YSR, Karunanidhi or any other politician.
This argument does not stand any logic. When farmers are dying or committing suicide then we have space program and building nuclear weapons. These are expensive programs. We spend hundreds of crore on military budget. If one things is not working properly then we can not cut budget for the other. If the farmers are committing suicide, it is because of the inefficiency in the public distribution system and other corruptions in the bureaucracy and not because of space program or statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Mumbai. We needs statues, we need memorials to conserve and show our heritage, culture and whatever political agenda.
But the biggest question is which way to go? In my opinion, there is a need to setup and independent and autonomous commission or authority to develop and enforce guidelines on such projects. There should be non-ambiguous criteria when and how much public fund can be spent on statue building or any other so-called cultural projects. The total budget for such projects should not ever exceed a prescribed percentage of the total budget of state or the center. And in any case it should not be more than the budget of ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) budget. ASI has bigger role and responsibility to play in India than these new projects.
Unless such regulations are in place politicians of every party will continue to exploit the loophole in the system and get cabinet's approval for any project. Even the court is helpless when there is no law to stop these projects. Building statues does not violet any current law. We first need law to make this statue building exercise auditable under some strict guidelines.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Making CBSE class 10 exam does not solve the core problem
Mr Kapil Sibal is minister and no one can stop him from doing what he wants to do because he has support from Indian PM who was educated in Oxford and would like to see similar education system as it exist in UK. The first casuality of determination is CBSE class 10 exams that are made optional now. His argument are that class 10 exams are irrelevant because no student is judged on the basis of class 10th marks for university entrance and it puts undue pressure on the students. It seems very logical argument. Why have exams for class 10 when no one care for the results? But the same logic how can be justify the exams for the class 12th. Are they still young for the pressure? Just a gap of 2 years do not make them extra mature to handle the pressure. Now how can, if a student wants to, a student change school after class 10? They will not have any credible report to show their worth. What will happen if a students fails in the internal grading because his/her teacher does not like him/her but pass the external optional exams with high grades?
I believe the major problem was not the exam in itself but the way they were conducted. This year almost 90% student cleared the exam. What is expected when the CBSE exam will become optional? Do we want 100% to pass through class 10? It might not happen because there will be some student who just can not pass any amount of liberty is given. At the same time who will take the liability of giving false hope to the parents of students in class 10. A large number of private school will pass 100% of their students to make students and parents happy. If in one such private school 90% students fail in class 12th then what will be do? Wouldn't it be counter-productive and more stressful for students and more suicide case? A brilliant student of class 10 failing terribly in class 12.
Not surprisingly these exams were not left of any significant in recent years. A large number of students get over 95% overall and even in subject like history and language. It is difficult to believe that the students were to brilliant that so many got such a high percentage. It was the papers were set and the classes were conducted during the whole year. Students were prepared for the exam questions only rather than their holistic development. There is huge difference in the infrastructure of some private school and poorly funded public schools. Teachers do not come to classes and weaving sweaters during the class hours have been common sight in public (government funded) school.
The honorable minister needs to tackle the problem of quality, accessibility, infrastructures and affordability otherwise only the students of elite class will continue to go to the best schools and reap the benefits whatever the format of grading is used.
I believe the major problem was not the exam in itself but the way they were conducted. This year almost 90% student cleared the exam. What is expected when the CBSE exam will become optional? Do we want 100% to pass through class 10? It might not happen because there will be some student who just can not pass any amount of liberty is given. At the same time who will take the liability of giving false hope to the parents of students in class 10. A large number of private school will pass 100% of their students to make students and parents happy. If in one such private school 90% students fail in class 12th then what will be do? Wouldn't it be counter-productive and more stressful for students and more suicide case? A brilliant student of class 10 failing terribly in class 12.
Not surprisingly these exams were not left of any significant in recent years. A large number of students get over 95% overall and even in subject like history and language. It is difficult to believe that the students were to brilliant that so many got such a high percentage. It was the papers were set and the classes were conducted during the whole year. Students were prepared for the exam questions only rather than their holistic development. There is huge difference in the infrastructure of some private school and poorly funded public schools. Teachers do not come to classes and weaving sweaters during the class hours have been common sight in public (government funded) school.
The honorable minister needs to tackle the problem of quality, accessibility, infrastructures and affordability otherwise only the students of elite class will continue to go to the best schools and reap the benefits whatever the format of grading is used.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Why don't they leave lion alone in the cage?
I was recently reading Telegraph newspaper and found something very silly. I do not understand what the purpose was to post this video. Though I appreciate that posted this video and we know how insensitive reporter telegraph has recruited. When the Lion are becoming extinct species then how come their reporter goes to disturb a lion living in a cage. Charles Starmer Smith entered the lion cage and he was attacked by the lion. If you see the video attached below you will find that the lion was very tolerate of his behavior but this reporter was adamant to get bites from the lion.
What he was trying to prove? When there is a big sign saying "stay away from the animals and do not touch them" then why he entered the cage. Of course the official in the sanctuary are also culprit why they allowed him in. But we know that corruption is widespread in poor developing countries. It is the responsibility of the educated and rich people not to exploit this weakness for their fun.
Telegraph newspaper is equally responsible to encourage reporters to do these adventure and pay them for these activities that encourages putting life in danger of the endangered species. The newspaper should make sure that its reporters do not exploit their status and money in future to any such activity.
What he was trying to prove? When there is a big sign saying "stay away from the animals and do not touch them" then why he entered the cage. Of course the official in the sanctuary are also culprit why they allowed him in. But we know that corruption is widespread in poor developing countries. It is the responsibility of the educated and rich people not to exploit this weakness for their fun.
Telegraph newspaper is equally responsible to encourage reporters to do these adventure and pay them for these activities that encourages putting life in danger of the endangered species. The newspaper should make sure that its reporters do not exploit their status and money in future to any such activity.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Ban on Jaswant Singh's book was unnecessary and unwanted
As soon as the book by Jaswant Singh - Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence- came in the market it was banned by the Gujarat government. Though no one had (could) read the book in a day time when the order came from the CM office to ban the book but there is always issue why to ban a book. In some cases, it makes sense in the interest of public. For example, India banned Salman Russdie's book, Satanic verses but that was different case altogether. It is debatable if satanic verses would have really caused any harm to the public.
Time has also changed so banning a book in one state is not that effective any more. Ban by Gujarat government only said that publication, distribution and sale of the book was not allowed in the state. This did not and could not ban reading the booking in Gujarat. Anyone can buy from neighbouring state or online and read the book. How can state government stop this? It is out of its jurisdiction to stop people from reading whatever they like to. So it makes ban ineffective in current time.
Secondly, who was going to read the book anyway? If the book was not made controversial then there was possibility that a very few people would have read the book. Even after all this high drama, only a very few elite and intellectual class will read the book. This book is not going to be part of university curriculum in near future. As, some sources say that Modi was afraid that (allegedly) negative role of Patel described in the book might hurt his chances of winning in by-polls election. He is too paranoid after the parties poor performance in Lok Sabha election to ignore such small issues like a book. Masses are not going to read this book and make their judgement who to vote.
Finally, some relief has come from Gujarat high court that has lifted the ban on the book.
Time has also changed so banning a book in one state is not that effective any more. Ban by Gujarat government only said that publication, distribution and sale of the book was not allowed in the state. This did not and could not ban reading the booking in Gujarat. Anyone can buy from neighbouring state or online and read the book. How can state government stop this? It is out of its jurisdiction to stop people from reading whatever they like to. So it makes ban ineffective in current time.
Secondly, who was going to read the book anyway? If the book was not made controversial then there was possibility that a very few people would have read the book. Even after all this high drama, only a very few elite and intellectual class will read the book. This book is not going to be part of university curriculum in near future. As, some sources say that Modi was afraid that (allegedly) negative role of Patel described in the book might hurt his chances of winning in by-polls election. He is too paranoid after the parties poor performance in Lok Sabha election to ignore such small issues like a book. Masses are not going to read this book and make their judgement who to vote.
Finally, some relief has come from Gujarat high court that has lifted the ban on the book.
YSR Reddy legacy for Congress
It is one of the most unpleasant moment in the history of Andhra Pradesh that the most popular leader of current time has died in an accident. His popularity can be assessed from the fact that 67 people have committed suicide or died after hearing the news of terrible death of their leader. Now, his son has appealed to the public not to commit suicide and show patience and be brave. Definitely, he was popular and successful and he managed to reach this position single-handedly with his determination and hard work.
The congress party is projecting as if a national hero (leader) has died and the media is full of praise about what he did and how (well?) he managed the social welfare programs in the state. But behind all this, there is an bad face of YSR as well. He is also the one CM who put many journalist in Andhra who spoke against him. He gave little freedom to political rivals from opposition parties and even his own party. He was authoritarian and ran the show as in feudal system. He was linked with some of the business houses in making deals for his personal profit. The role of state government in changing the route for Hydrabad metro was criticised by Delhi metro chief Sreedharan. He had pointed out that the route was changed to appease the consortium and prime land was given cheap to the developers. His allegation makes much sense when seen in the light that Satyam chairman has accepted his fraud in Satyam accounts. Mr. Raju and his family was also led developer of the metro project. Undoubtedly Mr. Sreedharan was pointing the role of YSR, but implicitly, in this corruption. There are many cases of corruption against him.
Despite being one of the most corrupt chief minister, he was darling to the Congress party and particularly to Sonia Gandhi. It was not without reason. He was the man who could win majority of seats from the state for Congress party after three decades. He made possible for the party to come to center in 2004 by defeating Chandrababu Naidu. By showing remarkable performance in the state, he was able to get freedom from the high command to run his show in the state.
To win seats, he was using populist majors that gives immediate results. He gave pensions to the families of suicide victims, distributed BPL ration cards in massive numbers. But he failed to create any substantial infrastructure or industry that could provide jobs to the poor. A society can not be supported for ever by state funds. People need to work. That was missing. But perhaps if he had lived longer he could have worked on this direction as well. We did not get chance to see much of him.
May his soul rest in peace.
The congress party is projecting as if a national hero (leader) has died and the media is full of praise about what he did and how (well?) he managed the social welfare programs in the state. But behind all this, there is an bad face of YSR as well. He is also the one CM who put many journalist in Andhra who spoke against him. He gave little freedom to political rivals from opposition parties and even his own party. He was authoritarian and ran the show as in feudal system. He was linked with some of the business houses in making deals for his personal profit. The role of state government in changing the route for Hydrabad metro was criticised by Delhi metro chief Sreedharan. He had pointed out that the route was changed to appease the consortium and prime land was given cheap to the developers. His allegation makes much sense when seen in the light that Satyam chairman has accepted his fraud in Satyam accounts. Mr. Raju and his family was also led developer of the metro project. Undoubtedly Mr. Sreedharan was pointing the role of YSR, but implicitly, in this corruption. There are many cases of corruption against him.
Despite being one of the most corrupt chief minister, he was darling to the Congress party and particularly to Sonia Gandhi. It was not without reason. He was the man who could win majority of seats from the state for Congress party after three decades. He made possible for the party to come to center in 2004 by defeating Chandrababu Naidu. By showing remarkable performance in the state, he was able to get freedom from the high command to run his show in the state.
To win seats, he was using populist majors that gives immediate results. He gave pensions to the families of suicide victims, distributed BPL ration cards in massive numbers. But he failed to create any substantial infrastructure or industry that could provide jobs to the poor. A society can not be supported for ever by state funds. People need to work. That was missing. But perhaps if he had lived longer he could have worked on this direction as well. We did not get chance to see much of him.
May his soul rest in peace.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
What is hidden behind 6.1% Indian GDP growth
Indian PM was happy man to see 6.1% GDP growth for the last quarter. He was even happier to know Indian government godown (warehouses) has 50 million tons of food that is good enough for 13 months of supply through PDS. Interestingly Indian newspapers also started gaga about the growth and started projecting if global recession is over. But there are many facts hidden behind these numbers.
Statistical data for export and import is released one day after the release of overall growth. Though India media, including the business newspapers, did not concentrate too much on this export-import data. One need to search foreign media to find the facts. BBC reports that Indian export has declined by 28% and import by 37% in the month of July. Though it is a known fact that Indian economy is not export-oriented but it gives employment to millions of people (yes, it a very small % of billion plus population) in cities like Surat and Bhathinda where handcraft work is done. These people will have to go back to their houses in the village. Many reports suggest that this is already happening. When there was 8% GDP growth the benefits never reached the poorest of poor people of the country (that means almost 40% population) and when the recession has hit the world, there will be more poor people. There is still no study but it might undone all the poverty uplift of last 10 years during economic boom.
On the other hand, one can not trust the government gowdons for food demand in the country. Officially they might have food for everyone but a large amount of food will not exist in the godowns or will be of poor quality. Why the officers and politician will not sell from the godown when they can sell and never get caught because they can always mix small stones in the food packets.
PM of India need to get in touch of the realities rather than making fancy policies and citing numbers.
Statistical data for export and import is released one day after the release of overall growth. Though India media, including the business newspapers, did not concentrate too much on this export-import data. One need to search foreign media to find the facts. BBC reports that Indian export has declined by 28% and import by 37% in the month of July. Though it is a known fact that Indian economy is not export-oriented but it gives employment to millions of people (yes, it a very small % of billion plus population) in cities like Surat and Bhathinda where handcraft work is done. These people will have to go back to their houses in the village. Many reports suggest that this is already happening. When there was 8% GDP growth the benefits never reached the poorest of poor people of the country (that means almost 40% population) and when the recession has hit the world, there will be more poor people. There is still no study but it might undone all the poverty uplift of last 10 years during economic boom.
On the other hand, one can not trust the government gowdons for food demand in the country. Officially they might have food for everyone but a large amount of food will not exist in the godowns or will be of poor quality. Why the officers and politician will not sell from the godown when they can sell and never get caught because they can always mix small stones in the food packets.
PM of India need to get in touch of the realities rather than making fancy policies and citing numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)