I'm against the whole concept of reservation
While listening to some of my friends on reservation, I got the opinion that many of them are against only the percentage or its implementation, but very few question its own principle. We have been so schooled that we are made to think that "Reservation is indispensible". I see that many of my friends find it so hard to rethink the whole concept.
Some of them argue that there must be reservation atleast based on economic levels, sex or physical ability. Even I was tempted by this seemingly convincing argument. After all, I'm highly sentimental and particularly I'm very sympathetic towards physcially diabled people. So, should I make an exception?? After, thinking logically, I feel the answer is NO. There should not be any reservation of any kind. Why?
Suppose, our reservation practice is ideal and we really find a downtrodden person and want to elevate him. Say, we give him a position of a civil engineer. Since, he was not qualified in the first place, he might not be able to compete in the exams. Ok, lets make further concession and allow him to pass, seeing his pitiable conditions. Since, he was not qualified in the first place, he might not get jobs that his peers would get. Again, we make concessions and give him a job and so on. This process continues for life and we made that guy a slave to our whims. He becomes forever dependent on us and all his self-respect is gone. what would be left of him?
But, worse, what if that guy designs a bridge? Since, he never came by meritorious means there is a high probability that his designs will be sub-standard. Thus, there is a greater chance for its collapse and if it collapses what happens? We 'uplifted' one guy and pushed down a whole group of people in the form of accidents and death. For his upliftment, the entire society gets punished!!! This is not an hypothetical story... It happens in everyday INDIA.
Thus, after his admission
1. If he is not allowed to pass - both the instituion and his resources and time are wasted
2. If he is allowed to pass and doesnt get a job, the instituion's recruitment standards get lowered and he is doomed
3. If he gets a job, the entire society is put in a danger
Whatever be the case, his admission is a lose-lose situation for everyone.
If s/he were a doctor, s/he could put so many life's in danger through improper medication and inability to stop diseases. If s/he is a teacher s/he could put the career of so many students in peril. If s/he is a researcher, nation's R&D gets impaired.... Now can you begin to see why we have so many problems around us.
Now, ironically the backward sections of the society are more in danger, because of their lack of choices. The economically forward people have a choice of good doctors, good teachers and sometimes even good road (like the Mumbai-Pune expressway). Or they can even leave the country. But, the poor and downtrodden have to deal with all these sub-standard doctors, engineers, teachers, administrators and their lives are doomed.
Thus, reservation is one of the cause for India's rural in-development. If people really care about the poor, downtrodden and the illiterate, we should work really hard to remove the whole concept of reservation.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Excerpts from post of Dimple Singh from HUM
"Anna’s struggle for Lokpal should be seen on this background, not just with the microscope to examine the minutia of the Jan Lokpal Bill. It needs to be observed and understood through the telescope, looking at the totality of the Indian political canvas. It is actually not simply a fight to choose either the Jan Lokpal or the government draft for Lokpal. It is a fight between civil society demanding unprecedented accountability from the power elites of India - who are refusing to accept this accountability."
"What should be a constructive and trustful dialogue has degenerated into a suicidal conflict. All political parties are either clearly against creating this full accountability, or are at best are ambiguous about imposing it.:
Three basic assumptions of the realities of politics : First, the politicians are not in power for serving the people, they are in power to increase and perpetuate their own power.
Second, they will not do anything to pass any law, or take any executive initiative, unless it is clearly to their own benefit (possibly also including their party at times).
Third, every initiative they do take, whether administrative or legislative, will be couched as if it for the benefit of the people, and for the service of the society. Better still if it can be claimed to be for the protection of the weak, the downtrodden, the minorities and the oppressed – whether or not it actually is so.
There is also the fourth unwritten rule. They do not take seriously anyone or any suggestion, no matter how logical, how beneficial to the nation, how ethically correct - If it comes from someone who is not part of the political system, and who is just simply a well meaning citizen. They consider them to be irrelevant, no good do gooders. The fact is they know what to do and how to do it. If they don’t do it, it is because it does not suit their political aim.
"On the other hand corruption flows from the top to the bottom, the money flows from the bottom to the top. It is this apex that Anna say he wants to make answerable. "
"I am aware that there are those who condemn Narendra Modi as being responsible for the ghastly riots that occurred in Gujarat post the Godhra massacre. Also there are those who think that Nitish Kumar the leader of Bihar is no saint. Be that as it may, the fact remains that they are by any standard, seen to be among the providers of cleanest administrations in India, having brought rampaging corruption under control."
"Will the Jan Lokpal Bill of Anna Hazare variety remove all corruption, acting like a magic wand. Or would the government sponsored Lokpal bill, (popularly derided as Jokepal bill), achieve cleansing of the society in total. The answer to both questions is – it is not easily possible. Why then the Lokpal. The answer is that the people who rule this country, the people who control this country, the people who exploit (or enable to exploit) the economic fruit of this country, have to be made accountable. I am sure this is what Anna wants, though some people on the fringes of the agitation he is leading may have some other agendas."
"There is ample evidence to believe that the bulk of the politicians and bureaucrats who rule our country - do not want a change in the status quo.They are not acting in the spirit of settlement to find a solution to establish accountability. Their aim is to reduce the risk to the status quo."
"Let us not forget the twin concepts of Riti and Niti. Riti is the established practice before which even the King had to bow. He always had the obligation to stay within it. And Niti, the ethic, by which things have to happen. These were sacrosanct. Those in parliament cannot legislate for their own protection or aggrandizement. They must exercise their judgment -- as honourable people, acting in the interest of the society. The argument that nobody can dictate to the parliament, is a fallacious argument. "
"One hears from very learned lawyers, both outside and inside the government, who speak of the supremacy of parliament and of the right of only the Parliament to decide what any law should be. Aap kis muh se parliamentary democracy ki baat karte ho, jab aap sir se pair tak ji-hazuree me lipt ho ? which party today (barring exceptions), practices inner party democracy ? "
"The British left India and the Maharajas gave up their kingdoms not because they became suddenly kind hearted. Today’s India has changed beyond recognition. The aware and empowered people cannot be taken for granted. Let us hope the political processes in our country catch up with peoples aspirations."
“We the people” have given our country the Constitution. The Parliament, the President, the Judiciary, the Prime Minister, indeed the full Government are mere creatures of the Constitution. The people are supreme. The dictat of the people, as articulated by Anna, is an earnest message to the parliamentarians – “Expose yourself to the demand for accountability, or else….”
------ The Summary/Main point of a big article if one lack the Time Luxury ------------ The End of a mast, awesome article---- Jai Hind.
"What should be a constructive and trustful dialogue has degenerated into a suicidal conflict. All political parties are either clearly against creating this full accountability, or are at best are ambiguous about imposing it.:
Three basic assumptions of the realities of politics : First, the politicians are not in power for serving the people, they are in power to increase and perpetuate their own power.
Second, they will not do anything to pass any law, or take any executive initiative, unless it is clearly to their own benefit (possibly also including their party at times).
Third, every initiative they do take, whether administrative or legislative, will be couched as if it for the benefit of the people, and for the service of the society. Better still if it can be claimed to be for the protection of the weak, the downtrodden, the minorities and the oppressed – whether or not it actually is so.
There is also the fourth unwritten rule. They do not take seriously anyone or any suggestion, no matter how logical, how beneficial to the nation, how ethically correct - If it comes from someone who is not part of the political system, and who is just simply a well meaning citizen. They consider them to be irrelevant, no good do gooders. The fact is they know what to do and how to do it. If they don’t do it, it is because it does not suit their political aim.
"On the other hand corruption flows from the top to the bottom, the money flows from the bottom to the top. It is this apex that Anna say he wants to make answerable. "
"I am aware that there are those who condemn Narendra Modi as being responsible for the ghastly riots that occurred in Gujarat post the Godhra massacre. Also there are those who think that Nitish Kumar the leader of Bihar is no saint. Be that as it may, the fact remains that they are by any standard, seen to be among the providers of cleanest administrations in India, having brought rampaging corruption under control."
"Will the Jan Lokpal Bill of Anna Hazare variety remove all corruption, acting like a magic wand. Or would the government sponsored Lokpal bill, (popularly derided as Jokepal bill), achieve cleansing of the society in total. The answer to both questions is – it is not easily possible. Why then the Lokpal. The answer is that the people who rule this country, the people who control this country, the people who exploit (or enable to exploit) the economic fruit of this country, have to be made accountable. I am sure this is what Anna wants, though some people on the fringes of the agitation he is leading may have some other agendas."
"There is ample evidence to believe that the bulk of the politicians and bureaucrats who rule our country - do not want a change in the status quo.They are not acting in the spirit of settlement to find a solution to establish accountability. Their aim is to reduce the risk to the status quo."
"Let us not forget the twin concepts of Riti and Niti. Riti is the established practice before which even the King had to bow. He always had the obligation to stay within it. And Niti, the ethic, by which things have to happen. These were sacrosanct. Those in parliament cannot legislate for their own protection or aggrandizement. They must exercise their judgment -- as honourable people, acting in the interest of the society. The argument that nobody can dictate to the parliament, is a fallacious argument. "
"One hears from very learned lawyers, both outside and inside the government, who speak of the supremacy of parliament and of the right of only the Parliament to decide what any law should be. Aap kis muh se parliamentary democracy ki baat karte ho, jab aap sir se pair tak ji-hazuree me lipt ho ? which party today (barring exceptions), practices inner party democracy ? "
"The British left India and the Maharajas gave up their kingdoms not because they became suddenly kind hearted. Today’s India has changed beyond recognition. The aware and empowered people cannot be taken for granted. Let us hope the political processes in our country catch up with peoples aspirations."
“We the people” have given our country the Constitution. The Parliament, the President, the Judiciary, the Prime Minister, indeed the full Government are mere creatures of the Constitution. The people are supreme. The dictat of the people, as articulated by Anna, is an earnest message to the parliamentarians – “Expose yourself to the demand for accountability, or else….”
------ The Summary/Main point of a big article if one lack the Time Luxury ------------ The End of a mast, awesome article---- Jai Hind.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Satsang like Amazing speech of Anna Ji: A message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vJD6TzsmA0&feature=share
Sunday, August 21, 2011
India-China and Dalai Lama. (comments on Amit B's post.)
Do you think their invasion of Tibet was justify and their issue with Dalai are appropriate? I am sure not...
China is not our friend at its own will. There is no reason at our side. If one decides to be your enemy you cannot make him friend. You cannot force him. Friendship is Bilateral.
Historical Blunders happened with China on our side are primarily because of cruel intentions of China. Secondly we were not able to handle them properly.
Is a single man like Dalai Lama can be really that a big problem to whole China that it force them to attack on country like India which is not only your neighbor but is friendly as well?
I don't buy it. They have the cruel intentions beyond doubt. They were looking for a reason i guess. So that they can confront international community as well as world is much bigger than just India and China. Their activities were malicious. Why will otherwise they attack on Tibet which don't had even an Army of its own? Is that what you do with good people? Now when they are not ready to accept your Dadagiri you will cut their tongue even if it means attacking on Nation India?
In that sense tension b/w Indo-China was was inevitable sooner or later. Its just India held its pride and sovereignty by accepting, victimized by Dadagiri, Dalai Lama.
Also In fact China's activities were malicious. China itself dragged India into it by attacking on peaceful ppl of Tibet leaving no option to Dalai Lama and India without compromising any big thing. China should have consulted India before attacking Tibet.
India facing the heat of Chinese activities is inevitable and unavoidable. You will always be affected by attitude of your neighbor. Thats what has happened with India. Only way to deal now is to be strong and tackle China till infinity until they fix their attitude.
China is not our friend at its own will. There is no reason at our side. If one decides to be your enemy you cannot make him friend. You cannot force him. Friendship is Bilateral.
Historical Blunders happened with China on our side are primarily because of cruel intentions of China. Secondly we were not able to handle them properly.
Is a single man like Dalai Lama can be really that a big problem to whole China that it force them to attack on country like India which is not only your neighbor but is friendly as well?
I don't buy it. They have the cruel intentions beyond doubt. They were looking for a reason i guess. So that they can confront international community as well as world is much bigger than just India and China. Their activities were malicious. Why will otherwise they attack on Tibet which don't had even an Army of its own? Is that what you do with good people? Now when they are not ready to accept your Dadagiri you will cut their tongue even if it means attacking on Nation India?
In that sense tension b/w Indo-China was was inevitable sooner or later. Its just India held its pride and sovereignty by accepting, victimized by Dadagiri, Dalai Lama.
Also In fact China's activities were malicious. China itself dragged India into it by attacking on peaceful ppl of Tibet leaving no option to Dalai Lama and India without compromising any big thing. China should have consulted India before attacking Tibet.
India facing the heat of Chinese activities is inevitable and unavoidable. You will always be affected by attitude of your neighbor. Thats what has happened with India. Only way to deal now is to be strong and tackle China till infinity until they fix their attitude.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Congress is Sonia Gandhi and Corruption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4FXqU8XY0A&feature=related : Corrupt and fake Congress
Comments on Acharya Sreevaths' note on need of Agression
I disagree. I think opposite. Violence is aggressive. You start with good intention. But for that reason it corrupts your mind very soon. Violence may get you a solution but at a very inhuman, rude and immoral cost. And mostly that solution will be short lived. The very definition of violence is the target do not matter to you. It is not any one like you. In that sense a very selfish approach and sefishness is not our way. Violence looses support very soon and hence looses stand soon. And to make things worse, by the time it looses it has already gone irrecoverable. The moment you go Violent you provoke your enemy to react for the sake of mere survival. You loose your credibility in eyes of your enemy and rest. Violent is Jungle concept. Not a civilian.
The Beauty of Gandhian way is it unleashes the opponent. Opponent starts loosing its credibility no matter it watches or tries to suppress you. Its more advanced psychology. It derives the power from the strength of enenmy. It increases you credibility if honestly followed in unprecedented matter. It can even win hearts of enemy. It draws common people support and even some of the enemy sider turn your way. Non Violence admits the reality that you are also like us and hence Violence to you is as heinous as to us. Its a civilian approach. Even if you don't get a solution you defame you opponent in eyes of every one and sow seeds of future generation bouncing back to get the aim. Any normal one can go Violent. But protesting Gandhian is not any one can do.
And History has two very big examples supporting my point. Gandhigiri has worked wonders in those days and also about recent Anti Corruption moment lead by Anna Ji. But look at what happened to Afghanistan (I assume you know). Their saviors (Mujahideens) got corrupt, violence entertained and blood thirsty and became the worst enemy of Afghan people. A nightmare. If Violence becomes a norm its dreadful.
But yes, when wrong doer cross moral limits they have to be dealt in same language after extreme extents.
Point is credibility of opponent should never go up and yours never go down. The way to do is Gandhian. At least at start of it.
And if finally you have to do violence, you have ensure it's not done to satisfy your anger. It has to be disciplined. That much only which suits the cause.
Gandhi Ji not preventing Bhagat Singh needs to understood not confused. Consider, You think Humanity is saved by going right and destroyed by going left. But I think vice versa. In that case both of us if has to oppose ease other. Physically even. Even try to kill each other for a cause, for humanity (though by heart we respect each other a lot but we respect Humanity more than that). In that case none of us is wrong. Both are right. Doing our duty. Praise worthy. Great. But at time two rights things become mutually exclusive. I am sure you will agree that Gandhi Ji and Bhagat Ji both wanted to get us Independence. Both had but exactly opposite way. We must be more responsible and undertake the complexity of these delicate incidents instead of taking a easier option of immature conclusion.
Gandhi Ji was a very honest man beyond doubt. His intentions can never be challenged. They are not challenged even by British, Americans or even Chines. So was Bhagat Ji beyond doubt.
You know why Bhagat Ji was so effective? Even he used non violence in very smart way. His modus-operandi was aggressive but at the core of it was Non Violence.
The strength of Gandhian way is that you are not doing any thing wrong. You are not causing any damage to opponent. Opponent becomes pretty helpless in this case. He can't oppose you. If he reacts he makes biggest mistake specially if he is aggressive. His move immediately becomes immoral and condemnable. He digs his own grave. The more he reacts the more wicked he looks. His strength becomes his weakness.
India is not following any Gandhian policy. That is why India has been at loss so far. What India is doing is not going Gandhian but ignoring the problem. Being coward. Being Gandhian is being very brave not coward.
Pls take a not that Gandhian way is always aggressive. It is peaceful and non violent but that does not mean that it is passive. The passive resistance is most aggressive. For ex 'If someone slaps at one side of your face It never says pass a smile and say thanks. Rather it says put the other side of face forward. The moment you do this you give him a life time experience. If still he slaps put the first one forward leading to his utmost embarrassment. The slapper needs a reason to slap. No one slaps with no reason. You may continue doing that if he still has a reason to slap you. But very soon at a point he is helpless.' So Gandhian way is very aggressive.
That is the mistake India has done. It was never aggressive. In fact in the name of Gandhiwaad it has found a comfortable way of dealing with problem. Good thing is that even this has been effective. Jai Hind.
The Beauty of Gandhian way is it unleashes the opponent. Opponent starts loosing its credibility no matter it watches or tries to suppress you. Its more advanced psychology. It derives the power from the strength of enenmy. It increases you credibility if honestly followed in unprecedented matter. It can even win hearts of enemy. It draws common people support and even some of the enemy sider turn your way. Non Violence admits the reality that you are also like us and hence Violence to you is as heinous as to us. Its a civilian approach. Even if you don't get a solution you defame you opponent in eyes of every one and sow seeds of future generation bouncing back to get the aim. Any normal one can go Violent. But protesting Gandhian is not any one can do.
And History has two very big examples supporting my point. Gandhigiri has worked wonders in those days and also about recent Anti Corruption moment lead by Anna Ji. But look at what happened to Afghanistan (I assume you know). Their saviors (Mujahideens) got corrupt, violence entertained and blood thirsty and became the worst enemy of Afghan people. A nightmare. If Violence becomes a norm its dreadful.
But yes, when wrong doer cross moral limits they have to be dealt in same language after extreme extents.
Point is credibility of opponent should never go up and yours never go down. The way to do is Gandhian. At least at start of it.
And if finally you have to do violence, you have ensure it's not done to satisfy your anger. It has to be disciplined. That much only which suits the cause.
Gandhi Ji not preventing Bhagat Singh needs to understood not confused. Consider, You think Humanity is saved by going right and destroyed by going left. But I think vice versa. In that case both of us if has to oppose ease other. Physically even. Even try to kill each other for a cause, for humanity (though by heart we respect each other a lot but we respect Humanity more than that). In that case none of us is wrong. Both are right. Doing our duty. Praise worthy. Great. But at time two rights things become mutually exclusive. I am sure you will agree that Gandhi Ji and Bhagat Ji both wanted to get us Independence. Both had but exactly opposite way. We must be more responsible and undertake the complexity of these delicate incidents instead of taking a easier option of immature conclusion.
Gandhi Ji was a very honest man beyond doubt. His intentions can never be challenged. They are not challenged even by British, Americans or even Chines. So was Bhagat Ji beyond doubt.
You know why Bhagat Ji was so effective? Even he used non violence in very smart way. His modus-operandi was aggressive but at the core of it was Non Violence.
The strength of Gandhian way is that you are not doing any thing wrong. You are not causing any damage to opponent. Opponent becomes pretty helpless in this case. He can't oppose you. If he reacts he makes biggest mistake specially if he is aggressive. His move immediately becomes immoral and condemnable. He digs his own grave. The more he reacts the more wicked he looks. His strength becomes his weakness.
India is not following any Gandhian policy. That is why India has been at loss so far. What India is doing is not going Gandhian but ignoring the problem. Being coward. Being Gandhian is being very brave not coward.
Pls take a not that Gandhian way is always aggressive. It is peaceful and non violent but that does not mean that it is passive. The passive resistance is most aggressive. For ex 'If someone slaps at one side of your face It never says pass a smile and say thanks. Rather it says put the other side of face forward. The moment you do this you give him a life time experience. If still he slaps put the first one forward leading to his utmost embarrassment. The slapper needs a reason to slap. No one slaps with no reason. You may continue doing that if he still has a reason to slap you. But very soon at a point he is helpless.' So Gandhian way is very aggressive.
That is the mistake India has done. It was never aggressive. In fact in the name of Gandhiwaad it has found a comfortable way of dealing with problem. Good thing is that even this has been effective. Jai Hind.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Subramanian Swamy - speaks on Sonia Raja 2G Chidambram many more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkOnfV93iE&feature=related
Part 4 : Rajiv Malhotra Speech at "Hindu Unity Day" Organized by Sanatana Dharma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzaFSnJ3u0I&feature=youtu.be
Anna Hazare Campaign Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxTGPrHSMk&NR=1 :Narayan Murthy Supporting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aNPod63nBM&feature=share : Arvind Kejriwal at IIT Chennai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD7fCRY7J94 : Anna: A vyaktiwaadi ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgELSndZ8jM :Nandan Nilekani opposing and trusting Politicians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96BirWKnco0&feature=share : Anna Ji a story.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63205308/Anna-s-letter-to-PMhttp://www.annahazare.org/pdf/Jan%20lokpal%20bill%20by%20Expert%20%28Eng%29.pdf : Jan Lokpal Bill
2 october Gandhi Jayanti Song by Pranjli Mishra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnRdJ7oLmoc&feature=feedbul
Anna Hazare . A song about courage & self detemination of 2nd Gandhi by Pranjli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r-_IK9ULgs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aNPod63nBM&feature=share : Arvind Kejriwal at IIT Chennai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD7fCRY7J94 : Anna: A vyaktiwaadi ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgELSndZ8jM :Nandan Nilekani opposing and trusting Politicians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96BirWKnco0&feature=share : Anna Ji a story.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63205308/Anna-s-letter-to-PMhttp://www.annahazare.org/pdf/Jan%20lokpal%20bill%20by%20Expert%20%28Eng%29.pdf : Jan Lokpal Bill
2 october Gandhi Jayanti Song by Pranjli Mishra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnRdJ7oLmoc&feature=feedbul
Anna Hazare . A song about courage & self detemination of 2nd Gandhi by Pranjli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r-_IK9ULgs&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)