Arundhati Roy - the "leftist" Ann Coulter of India!

Again, it's been a long time since I wrote - I just have not had the push or inspiration for blogging. But, today something caught my attention - my friend was watching some videos on Arundhati Roy's opinions on Kashmir and I was outraged by the comments Ms.Roy made about how the "militarised colonialists" aka India are oppressing the "freedom fighters" in Kashmir. I would have written it off as another publicity-hungry stunt by the media elite. However, it is such "human right activists" that the western media listens to, and forms an incorrect opinion of India. By equating the militancy in Kashmir to the Maoist insurgency, Ms.Roy loses whatever credibility she might have had in the discussion. Both of these issues might have legitimate concerns and reasons, but there is a way of postulating things. She prefers to ignore the holistic perspective of the complex Kashmir issue, by oversimplifying the point of contention and concentrating on a single viewpoint. For those of my friends who do know know about Ann Coulter, just google her up - she is one of the most vitriolic right-wing ideologues in the US today. Ms.Roy seems to be the "leftist" counterpart of Ms.Coulter, in India.

First of all, let us take a brief, unbiased look at the history of Kashmir (mostly taken from wiki):

Kashmir was one of the major centres of Sanskrit scholars in prehistoric times, and the Mauryan emperor Ashoka is often credited with having founded the city of Srinagar. In the late 4th century AD, Kashmir was a Buddhist seat of learning. By the 14th century, Islam gradually became the dominant religion in Kashmir. By the early 19th century, the Kashmir valley had passed from the control of the Durrani Empire of Afghanistan, and four centuries of Muslim rule under the Mughals and the Afghans, to the conquering Sikh armies. The Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu (as it was then called) was constituted between 1820 and 1858, under the British rule. After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, in which Kashmir sided with the British, and the subsequent assumption of direct rule by Great Britain, the princely state of Kashmir came under the paramountcy of the British Crown. The reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent, was given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or to remain independent. However, when the Maharaja was deliberating his choices, in October 1947, Pashtuns from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir, resulting in the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to India, and the Indian soldiers entering Kashmir and driving the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars out of the state. Since this time, Kashmir has been considered a "disputed territory". The UN Security Council passed resolution in 1948, that the invading Pakistani army retreat from Kashmir and that the accession of Kashmir to either India or Pakistan be determined in accordance with a plebiscite to be supervised by the UN. Since the Pakistani army never left the part of the Kashmir, India used it as a reason to not hold a plebiscite. India could have taken the higher road at this point of time, and held the plebiscite, but was well within its rights not to hold its end of the bargain since Pakistan failed to do the same. In 1949, the Indian government obliged Hari Singh to leave Jammu and Kashmir and yield the government to Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of a popular political party, the National Conference Party. Since then, Kashmir has always been considered an integral part of India - as much as any other state of India. In fact, Kashmir has been given more autonomy than any other state because of the special circumstances.

However, there has been continued violence in Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits as well as the Muslims living there. A lot of this can be attributed to the continued infiltration of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists into Kashmir across the border. The Indian army might have been involved in some human right violations, but they need to be present there to protect our borders from Pakistan. Any independent state has the right to protect its borders from occupation by other countries, but the army must be involved in atrocities against the people. The media and intellectuals like Ms.Roy should work as protectors of the people in these areas, shedding light on the transgressions of the army if there are such barbarities, and getting justice through the judicial system of the country, rather than inciting secession.

Now, let us concentrate a bit on Ms.Roy's speech about the issue of Kashmir. Let me start off by saying that the speech was given to a very pro-azaad-Kashmir/anti-India crowd in Srinagar, as was evident by the big round of applause she got, after proclaiming that Kashmir has never been an integral part of India, and supposedly this is not a radical stance she has taken, but the Indian government has already accepted it. I do not believe that the Indian government has ever accepted that Kashmir is not an integral part of India, as is evidenced by the history of the state. Ms Roy then goes on to say that, starting from the day India won independence, it became a colonial power, of its own right. This is a ridiculous statement to make - India never occupied territories outside of its boundaries. Kashmir acceded to India - was never "occupied" or "taken over", as was tried by the Pakistani army. Ms.Roy states other examples such as Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram - I am not conversant on the issues in the North Eastern parts of India. She also quotes other states such as Punjab, Goa and finally, Telengana. Telengana has always been a part of India - a part of the state Andhra Pradesh. Given a chance, Ms.Roy seems to want to break up India into 30 small countries, which will be incessantly in conflict with one another; then, probably break them further up into smaller countries, until they are all individual villages.

Ms.Roy then says that the Indian government sends Tamilians to fight in Kashmir, Punjabis to fight in Maoist areas, Kashmiris in Punjab and so on - she seems to conveniently forget that the Indian army is a single cohesive unit, which is not broken up in terms of states that the jawans come from - they are not sent out on basis of their origin either. The entire speech is filled with such baseless accusations, trying to further alienate the already instigated crowd, from a pro-Indian standpoint. She refers to the fact that the Indian army is fighting against Kashmiri people as India supposedly does not consider the Kashmiris as "our own" - if this is not provoking the people, what is. There is a legitimate reason for the army to be deployed in Kashmir - if not for the army, Pakistan would have occupied major portions of Kashmir a long time back, and the remaining portions would have been taken over by China.

Ms.Roy then goes on to say that the struggle in Kashmir is painted as a struggle against fundamental Islamists, and even if it is, it is the will of the people to have one and they should be allowed to their will. If Ms.Roy had lived in a fundamental Islamist nation, she would have understood the issues facing people in such countries - it is very easy to rhetorically speak on issues, when one is not faced with the same. She briefly and brusquely, refers to the disintegration of the Soviet Union as "capitalism winning its Jihad against soviet communism in the mountains of Afghanistan", and "US flipped and suddenly founding fathers waging jihad against soviet union became the world's greatest terrorists" - there were intricacies and nuanced international relations at that time in history, which Ms.Roy wants to ignore. Given a choice, I would rather be in an open, democratic (probably capitalist) country than a closed, communist country. I believe Ms.Roy would choose the same as well, but since it is just a "speech" and she does not have to make the actual decision of choosing one over the other, she has the luxury of making such statements. After listening to her speech for about 20 minutes, I was so incensed that I just could not take it any longer.

I do not even want to get started about Ms.Roy's support for the Maoists. The acts of violence committed by the Maoists against the Indian army and police, the sole aim of the Naxal movement being overthrowing the Indian state from the areas they have control over - these have completely voided the right of the Maoists from taking up arms for the sake of the "poor tribals". I do empathise with the tribals who have actually been affected by the inequitable treatment of the government - this issue needs to e addressed, but not by the arm-wielding, anti-nationalist Maoists.

I am the first to agree that the Indian democracy has a lot of flaws. Corruption is quite rampant in the government; the rate of unemployment and poverty is high; population is growing at an alarming rate everyday - even with all this, we should take into account that India is still a fledgling democracy, just 63 years old. It needs more time to mature as a country, to develop itself socially and economically and become a "developed" country. We are on our way there, and instead of impeding our progress, if people like Ms.Roy consolidate their efforts on other useful endeavors such as shedding light on the "real" issues of people with an unbiased view, exposing corrupt officials, developing a better judicial system with the people with a background in law forming a major backbone of the legislative process, improving the quality of media coverage and such, instead of sensationalising issues by making controversial statements to an already-polarised crowd, we souled be taking a few steps forward on our way to a developed India. Ms. Roy has to realise that she has the right to speak out as she does, only because of the fact that India is a democracy and not a fundamentalist or a communist country. If she cannot appreciate the fact, she needs to have the experience of living in a fundamentalist Islamic country like Iran or a communist country like China.

Hindi as our national language - can we really accept this compulsory mandate?

It's been quite a while since I had the drive or inspiration to write on a subject. A few weeks ago, after watching an episode of "We, the people" on NDTV, I had a long argument with my friend on the subject of Hindi imposition in India. The issue was again discussed in one of the articles in the Times of India today. Personally, I have always considered the ability to understand and speak in Hindi to be an advantage. However, I do not believe that imposing Hindi in schools and organisations throughout the country is the right way to move forward. India is a diverse country, where everyone is free to practise his/her own religion, speak his/her own language... I do not see the necessity of a national language to "unite" us all. When I made this point, my friend said that "you people" conceive this as an "imposition", instead of a duty or a privilege; "when the rest of India is ready to accept Hindi as the national language, why are a few southern states opposing it" - this "morally higher" ground is what got me riled up.

I want to make one point clear, right from the outset. I am proud to be Indian; I have no qualms about opposing the anti-Indian, pro-Tamil-state stance of a few extremist groups from Tamil Nadu; or criticising the anti-Hindi protests by MNS in Maharashtra, or the pro-Kannada rallies taken out by a few groups in Bangalore. I am not a regionalist; I oppose replacing English with Kannada as the medium of instruction in the schools in Karnataka. All I am opposed to is the imposition of one single language on the entire country. I strongly believe that the people should be given the choice of the language they want to study. If they choose to learn and speak Hindi, then we have no issues. If not, no one should have the right to impose on them, nor should fingers be pointed, purporting a "lack of pride and patriotism". This is what I vehemently disagree with. Am I anti-Hindi? Nope - I am as pro-Hindi, as I am pro-Tamil, or pro-Bengali; or as anti-Hindi as I am anti-Gujarati or anti-Telugu. Most people are not against a particular language, unless someone enforces the language on them. Nothing unites people for a revolt, nothing antagonises them, more than what one might envisage as an unfair mandate.

According to the 2001 census, 41% of the Indian population are native speakers of the Hindi dialect. By imposing Hindi as the national language, are we not providing an unfair advantage to this 41% of the population? Consider a kid in one of the rural areas of Karnataka, studying in the third grade. Most of the children work, as well as manage to go to school a few days a week. They may not have enough time to spend on learning a new language "Hindi". I believe their time would be spent better, learning English, and other subjects like Mathematics and the sciences. Contrast this kid with a kid from the rural areas in the Hindi speaking belt. He would not have to spend as much time learning "Hindi", as it is his mother tongue. Why should we place 59% of the population in a disadvantageous position?

People might ask - "what about the people in urban areas?" I still would say that the people should be provided with a choice, lest a portion of the population suffer from an unjust handicap. Consider the simple example of admission into a university, after high school. The total score, including the languages, is the criterion for admission in some premier institutions. A kid, studying in Bangalore would be at a disadvantage, as his Hindi would be of lower standard as compared to one from Delhi - leading to a lower score. Given a choice, he might have chosen a third language which neutralises the playing field, so to say - maybe a classical language like Sanskrit. I took up English, Kannada and Sanskrit as my three languages at school. In spite of this, thanks to my exposure to television and movies, I can understand Hindi, and I am able to talk decently in Hindi. Now, I have an advantage of knowing a fourth language - not unmerited, but a fair leverage. Why leave someone bereft of such an opportunity?

Let everyone be on equal grounds. If the government is bent upon having the non-Hindi speaking states enforce Hindi as a language, by means of their support for the 3 language policy, they should strictly enforce the 3-language policy in the Hindi-speaking states as well. In that case, everyone is learning a foreign language "English", their own native language, which might be Kannada or Hindi, as the case may be, and a third non-native Indian language - all Indians are on equal grounds with no unfair advantage to a single group of people. The issue raised by a few people against this is that there is no single language other than Hindi, that can be universally taught in the Hindi speaking state, as the non-native Indian language. The solution I have for this concern, is to have the states choose from a quorum of official languages - they can always hire teachers from other states, and develop appropriate expertise over time. If they are not successful in implementing equality by means of the 3 language policy, then they should not try to enforce the "third" language on the southern states either.

What really ticks me off is when someone takes the stance that when the other states do not have a problem, why is the issue being raised by the "southern" states? Well, it is the southern states that have their language the most different from Hindi - other languages like Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali etc, all have some commonality with Hindi. To the people from the Southern states, Hindi is as different from their native language, as English is. Also, I would like to point out that in addition to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, West Bengal and Orissa have also traditionally opposed the imposition of Hindi. The North-eastern states, I believe, are always unfairly treated; like step-children, I would say - the voice of their people is not as loud as those from their Southern counterparts. When "we" are the most affected, of course, "we" are the ones who make the loudest opposition. It is not anti-nationalistic if we oppose Hindi, we are as "Indian" as any other citizen from any other state. Equating "Hindi" to "India" is prevarication.

The other issue raised by proponents of the Hindi imposition is that when we are ready to accept English, which is a foreign language, why are we not ready to learn one of our own languages - Hindi. The utility of learning Hindi is much lower, compared to learning English. A person would learn a language if it has utility. Whether one wants to accept it or not, English is the universally accepted as the international language today, and we have to learn this foreign language if we have to survive and compete in today's world. Also, Hindi, a form of Hindustani, which was majorly influenced by the Persians and Mughals, although derived from Sanskrit, could be considered "foreign". Why not make "Sanskrit", the most pure, indigenous language of India as its national language? Why choose one foreign language over another? I do not think anyone would have issue with having Sanskrit as the national language - though impractical, I am just trying to make a point.

Finally, I come back to the democratic idea of choice. Let the people have choice - let them choose to learn or speak in the language they choose. Imposition or enforcement only makes things worse, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in our history. If people are provided with choice, politicians like Raj Thackeray and Karunanidhi lose their ammunition against the establishment; they will no longer be able to use the ignorance of the illiterate masses for their own political mileage. Multilingualism is an integral part of our diversity - let us preserve it. Instead of fighting over unimportant issues like this, people would concentrate on more relevant issues, and we would move forward, as a nation.

The austerity potion: too difficult to swallow

I was initially happy when I came to know that the Indian politicians, especially the Congress party leaders, are on an austerity drive and that they were giving 20% of their salary for helping out the people affected by the drought. Though this might not be a huge help, a small step in the right direction, I thought. However, as always, the happiness was short-lived, as this "drive" went way out of hand. This turned out to be another of those dramas that our society demands - be austere in public, do anything in private - just like almost every other "norm" in our country. It is high time we get out of such mentality.

Demanding the politicians to travel in economy class, instead of business class; commanding them to vacate their suites at the hotels - if this is what the austerity drive boils down to, then I feel that the whole idea is absurd. The reason the Congress party gives for the "drive" is that the politicians need to observe austerity in the current situation, since the nation is under draught. How ridiculous can the argument get! If we look at the numbers, the amount saved might not even come up to 0.1% of the resources needed to deal with the draught. The party should be worrying about other ways of countering the issue - stop building monuments or statues that drain the state or national exchequer, provide alternate means of livelihood to the affected people - there are many ways; one just needs to "think". Instead of going for such ludicrous drives, if they could reduce corruption by a minuscule amount, the nation will move ahead by huge strides.

One rarely gets to hear the "truth" from a politician. But I guess, Dr. Shashi Tharoor was going against the norm and being candid, when he said that he was staying at the hotel since the Kerala Bhavan (residence provided by the government) was not able to furnish a gym and privacy, which he needed. Is it wrong to have such needs? I don't think so. Is he using the taxpayer's money for satisfying his requirements? Nope. Is anyone harmed by his residence at a hotel? Nope! Dr. Tharoor was using his own hard-earned money (it doesn't actually matter if it was hard-earned, or not - as long as it is his own earning) to pay for his stay. I do not see the need for the hue and cry raised by the government over the issue. If the people feel that the politician is misusing his money, he would be thrown out in the next election.

What does one mean when one says that the sole purpose of the politicians is to "serve" people? Why is it a requirement that there should be a sense of sacrifice when someone decides to become a politician? What sort of a non-sensical notion is that? If we stick on to such notions, we will remain in the dark ages of yesterday and never move forward. If the educated, forward-thinking, liberal youth has to be inspired to even think about a career in politics, there should be a basic incentive, in addition to the feeling of "serving" people. And unless the educated youth of the country are inspired to get into politics, there is no way our country will ever move forward. One thing to be noted here is that I refer to politics as a career, a means of livelihood. A doctor, a social worker, an engineer, a lawyer, a cop, a professor and a myriad of other professions - "serve" people in one way or the other. Just because a politician is a "representative" of the people does not mean that he should lead an austere life. Why would a sane, educated person join politics, if he will not be able to send his kids to a good private school providing a high quality education, just because he is a politician and needs to be "austere", when he could have done the same, had he remained in any other profession he had chosen... say, an engineer at a private company. Such incidents only drive home the point that politics is not the career to aspire for, instead of encouraging the youth to think about the same!

Now, the other issue that this whole drama has brought to light is the hypocrisy of the public. Hypocrisy thrives in our society - we see it in our everyday lives, our own family and friends. But there has to be a time when one needs to make a stand, have a say... just a statement that the sanctimoniousness is not going unnoticed - maybe someone might even understand and change, though that might be asking for too much... or, is it? Hope is on what I live... Anyway, let us not digress. How can the public say that the politicians should lead an abstinent, austere life, when they themselves cannot live up to those standards? When every man tries to have as lavish a wedding as he can afford for his own son or daughter, what right does he have to criticise a rich person when they spend lavishly on their own requirements? Is it not utterly hypocritical to point hands at a politician for travelling business class, when it is the natural tendency of every man to try to live comfortably, to the best of his affordability? Why should we punish someone just because he is successful, or he is rich?

Moderation is a virtue - I do not disagree with that. I do not condone a lavish wedding, irrespective of who has it. However, I have issues when a politician is "ordered" to vacate his suite in a hotel, just because of his choice of career. The public should not care if the politician lives a frugal life - as long as he is efficient in accomplishing his duties, it should not matter to the public whether he is austere or not. The politicians, as well as the bureaucracy should be held accountable, should not use public funds for their own purposes. But I think they should have the right to use their own money in any way that they feel right. Ours is a diverse country in a huge way - let people live as they want, let us not discriminate based on some one's success, prosperity, or anything else... as long as they are not harming anyone, and doing what they are supposed to be doing!

India's big education revolution - a dream that might become an eventuality?

"Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Hope is something without which a human being cannot sustain. There has to be someone who starts walking along a path with hope - as sufficient people realise the importance of hope and envisage the benediction thereof, the road becomes an actuality. A radical change in the Indian education system - a hope in the hearts of thousands, if not millions of Indians, seems to be coming to fruition. It might be premature to say that things will dramatically change, but I do not think that it is naive to hope for such a transformation, anymore!

Kapil Sibal, the new HRD minister of India, seems to have taken a stand completely contrary to that taken by his predecessor, Mr. Arjun Singh - he seems to actually be interested in the development of the human resources in India... ;) I am impressed by the reforms Mr. Sibal seems to be proposing in this regard, as seen in one of his interviews. For starters, Mr. Sibal says that the tremendous pressure on the children as well as the parents due to the huge number of exams that the kids have to take up could be reduced - class 10 board exams can be scrapped when the students are moving to class 11 within the same institution. Overburdening the child with the pressure of board exams traumatises the entire family, which could be avoided by this proposal. The other drastic measure he seems to have introduced is the grading system, instead of marks, for classes 9 and 10, and he wants to extend this system to classes 11 and 12. This is an efficacious, utilitarian system where the child is evaluated not based on a single day of the exam, but over the year. The same system seems to work perfectly well in the US.

The minister also wants to bring about a uniformity of board standards - one exam for all students for class 12. A single exam of the SAT (standardized test for college admissions in the US) format for entry into university, for the entire country and then, the students get to choose the university based on "merit". Though this might be a long term goal, as he elucidated, it still shows the level of proficiency the minister has in this field. This might not just be as chimerical as one might construe, since the system already seems to have been already implemented for entry into all the law schools in India - extending the same to other universities might not be as quixotic or herculean, as one might imagine.

It is important to realise that central to the reform process is school education, so that enough people are thrown up to higher education and hence, move India forward. The government also had a proposal for providing school vouchers for the poor to attend "good" schools. Mr. Sibal feels that this might not be a practical option, since there are very few good quality schools. Unless we expand quality, the education system in India cannot move ahead. The minister also talked about introducing a bill for the right to education, whereby private schools need to "reserve" 25% to poorer students. I hope this refers to the "economically backward" students and not the caste based system. Since this is a very sensitive issue that affects every family in India, a change in the policy framework, with choice and quality as its twin pillars, seems to be the stipulation of the day. The way to move forward is through providing access through expansion, equity through inclusion and quality through excellence.

The other issue I have had with the Indian system of education - the rigidity of the curriculum - seems to have been addressed as well. There is a need to break down the classic division of art, commerce and science, a demand for inter-disciplinary options. A simple example would be of a student pursuing an advanced degree in chemistry wanting to take a few law courses and eventually become an intellectual property litigator for the government or a company. The flexibility of having minors from totally different fields like arts or law or journalism in medicine and engineering, in addition to the majoring field, might open up a plethora of opportunities to the students. Exposure to different fields would certainly help in the overall development of the personality.

With respect to higher education, Mr. Sibal's views were music, or I should say, symphony, to my ears. The minister plans to reduce, and eventually remove, government interference in higher education - the UGC will be a thing of the past. The overall posture of the minister is that there should not be reservation in higher education - "research institutions, centers of national importance, and institutions on niche areas of knowledge", as he put it, and that there is a need for autonomous body for higher education with no external interference. A completely different tune from that of Mr. Arjun Singh, huh? :)

As with any other domain, I believe that privatisation of education would provide the necessary competition and incentive to improve quality. The minister said that he plans to open up India to the world in the sphere of education, just like Dr. Manmohan Singh opened up the Indian economy in the early 1990's. An independent accredited agency of academic experts, away from the dominion of governmental influence, should be made responsible for the establishment of any university. This would allow renowned foreign universities to be able to come to India and provide their high quality education to the Indian students, at a much lower cost as compared to getting the same education in the foreign country. Of course, the logistics of affirmative action and conformance of laws need to be discussed and debated with the foreign institutions, but this measure just opens the field for such a dialogue. Competition among institutions of high repute within India, and top notch universities from all over the world is one of the best things that could happen to the student community in India. The "consumer" benefits!

We seem to have a progressive, pragmatic minister at the helm. I hope he gets to deliver at least 10% of what he wants to. We may not reach the paradise that we might envision, but we can always nurse our hope and support reformist people who could sculpt the future of our country. The idealism of equal opportunity might be an impossibility. But we can still hope... and dream!

Affirmative action in India: Time for repudiation?

Affirmative action has been defined as the set of policies that take race, ethnicity or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity, focusing on issue ranging from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. These policies have been implemented almost all over the world for racial and ethnic minorities, women, physically disabled, underprivileged classes and so on. While these policies have been initially introduced as a temporary measure to level the playing field for these classes, they have transformed into a ubiquitous, immutable affliction on the modern society. Reservation has become a bane for the "non-underprivileged" classes in the Indian context.

The reservation policy was instituted into the Indian constitution at the time it was framed and has been in perpetual existence ever since. Though reservations have been in vogue in every walk of life, I'd like to concentrate on education - one of the major issues that oppress the "non-oppressed" classes in the society. Let me illustrate a simple scenario of how reservation is affecting a student entering college. Being a bit more specific here, consider the Common Entrance Test (CET) for entering professional (meaning engineering or medical courses in India - no other course is considered - one of the many sources of my consternation, but let us not digress) courses in Karnataka. Ranks are awarded (or used to be awarded - it has been almost 9 years since I went through the system) based on the performance in the test, as well as the class 12 exams. There are a fixed number of seats in the top colleges, which is the aim for most of the students. Thanks to reservation, out of the 120 seats available for a particular course in the college, only around 30 are available to the "general merit" category and around 30 more for the "payment" category. A student belonging to one of the "underprivileged" classes can enter the college even with a ranking of 1200, while a student belonging to a "higher" caste cannot make it into the college in spit of getting a ranking of 150.

I would not have issues if the "underprivilege" was based on economic status, rather than the caste. I empathise with the student coming from the economically backward class, who might not have the resources or environment that might be available to a student who is economically well-to-do. But with similar economic status, if a student from a "non-underprivileged" class is denied entry based on his "higher" caste, then I would consider it as reverse discrimination. If this is not gross injustice to the student, I do not know what is! One might argue that if the student is that good, he would do equally well in a lower ranked college. Well, if we go down that path, then why did the student even have to study that hard? What happens to his morale? If he has to work twice as hard as an equally able student to reach the same status, would that not breed abhorrence towards that class? Isn't the whole purpose of affirmative action defeated?

Though I am totally unconvinced about this reservation system based on caste at the level of entering professional colleges, I'll let this go and move onto the the next level - reservations at higher educational institutions. I might let the former slide through for a few years (though most would agree that a time span of 60 years is a few too many). India has institutions for higher education of world repute - IIM's, IIT's, IISc, NLS, AIIMS, ISRO and so on. These world class institutions should not have to deal with the non-sensical politics of the government. My rationale is that once a person belonging to an "underprivileged" class has a college degree, he can find a job (he could "use" his caste card there as well, if it is a government organisation). He does not need any more "assistance" to move ahead in his career. The rest of his life should depend on his own intellect and capability. Entry into these higher-education institutions should be based only on merit, or any other parameters that the institution may deem important for their sphere of specialisation - but they should all be applied equally to everyone. It is an understatement that I was royally pissed off when I heard that the government was thinking of introducing reservations in the IIM's and increasing the quota (God knows what caste is not covered under the "underprivileged" classes now). Imagine the frustration that a "non-underprivileged" class guy would feel when he has to sit through the Common Admission Test (CAT) for 3 consecutive years to finally make it into an IIM when an "underprivileged" class guy can make it with much lesser effort/intellect within a single year!

In addition to this very convincing justification, there is a myriad of other reasons why reservation based on caste needs to be extirpated. This policy lowers standards of accountability needed to push students to perform better. Students admitted on this basis are, more often than not, ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. One other facet is that it is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. It demeans true minority achievement - success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.

It is high time that the youth of India do something about this anathema of reservation based on caste. Such antiquated laws, being used atrociously by politicians like Mayawati for their own selfish motives, need to be recalibrated every fixed number of years, till they are completely disposed of. Intellectual, progressive, practical lawmakers need to be responsible for making this happen. Some believe that equality is a myth, that can never be achieved in the Indian subcontinent. But unless we try to expunge such practices in a phased, practical manner, unless our mindset changes and begins to accept equality with no extra privileges, the utopian equal society, where everyone co-exists peacefully, irrespective of their religion, caste, sex, language, region or sexuality (or any of the other man-created barriers), will remain an allegory. There has to be an inception somewhere, sometime - why not here? why not now?

"Wave" - Google's new tornado

As most of my colleagues in the software industry concede, those of us working in front of the computer for at least 8 hours a day, spend, on an average, a couple of hours checking emails, updates from friends and acquaintances and news of interest - in general, the check for updates is perpetual throughout the day - whenever there is a free moment, or when a break is needed - the brain directs the hand to go and open the browser and do the needful... And more often than not, there is no need to even "open" a browser... it's already open with the necessary "tabs" that might not even need to be updated! Anyways, today morning, I saw a "facebook" update from a friend, with a link to "Google Wave preview". As is customary, I opened the link and was bowled over by the video. I could not stop myself from immediately sending an email out to a few friends about the new addition to the google "family". Then, I sat and watched the whole presentation - it was really commendable, to say the least. I don't remember the last time I blogged about technology - so here goes - a variation from the previous few posts!

I was truly spellbound by the vast set of features provided by the product, and the best thing about the whole protocol/application is that it is extendible and "OPEN-SOURCE". The software community can contribute to the development of the system. I can go on and on about the divine advantages of "open source" software - maybe a topic for another blog, sometime! Anyways, the "Wave" boasts of a set of features that I would actually love to have in my daily usage - practical and cool, at the same time. A brief array that I can remember from the hour long presentation:
-- Integrated email and chat - this is different from the traditional model in the concurrency and organisation; the look is totally cool and user-friendliness is unparalleled; very intuitive
-- Playback history - this was something that really caught my attention; this is such a cool feature and useful too; it could be integrated with any sort of communication - email, document sharing, chat...
-- Group conversations - add participants, private trees (privacy doesn't leave local server); really secure and neat
-- Drag/drop for attachments - Easy to use, cannot get cooler with concurrent viewing and updating capability
-- Embedding of other sites/features - blogs, orkut
-- Mobile application - obviously, they have the app on cell phones as well
-- Collaborative editing and source control for document production - I thought this was really nice and has great utility for us engineers who need to keep updating documents; a maintenance of the history of updates is also impressive
-- Real time translation between languages - the app seems to automatically translate the conversation to the language that was set
-- A lot of other features like "cooler" spell check, concurrent editing, games with playback, plugins for invitations, maps, polls, twitter, bug management, games

The really great thing about the entire application is that in spite of the huge feature set provided, it seemed very efficient and fast. I was completely dazzled by the concurrent editing feature. As always, google has proved itself as the front-runner in technology - and to think that they are ready with this in a just 18-24 months - it is simply mind-blowing (they might have had their reasons for "coming out" so soon... nevertheless, the effort is exemplary).

The other facet of the presentation that caught my attention was that the indefatigable Murphy's law held true to its veracity. A few features did not go as expected - some took longer, some just did not work! But the presenters were really good at what they did. They had a backup for last minute failures that happened, they started with an attention-grabbing feature... and ended with a bang! They could sell the product to a group of software developers and the world in a pertinaciously admirable manner. I realise that delivery and presentation are quite important. But just those attributes without substance fall flat on the face. This group had both.

I am also quite awed by the acumen of the company. They have realised that to live in this world, they have to live in the present, and in the future simultaneously. They learnt from their past mistakes. Proprietary software is not the way to go - open up the source code, but realise that they'd still be profitable if enough people use it. They envisage that open source developers form a huge driving force for the success of any product these days. Though I am not completely cognizant of the pros and cons of the business model involved, I comprehend that this seems to work in the customer oriented world, with a good feel of transparency about it. I do not think I could unequivocally declare that "Wave" is the best communication/collaboration tool ever, since I am pretty sure there will be something that will beat this, and in the near future - that is the beauty of technology and innovation, but I could say it is right there at the top.

I was also surprised that there was not a single Indian among the presenters/engineers that were in the video. Considering that a sizeable portion of the software community is Indian, I was expecting a couple of "desi" faces, or at least a few names in the "friends" list on the application. I tried to reason that the anomaly could be attributed to the fact that there might not have been a forum for "all" engineers/innovators to be present in this team. Since the guy who introduced the team was Indian, I guess there were other "desis" who presented from other teams.

One of the statements that the presenter made struck a chord in me... "We think the world will be a better place if this was an open system and everyone could build services into it." I was left wondering... how true the statement is... open minded people ready to accept the new things life has to offer, ready to accept the idiosyncrasies, ready to contribute to the overall development... how ideal would that be!

Income tax returns in India - a dystopia for the common tax payer?

An article grabbed my attention during the customary perusal of the daily news on the web. It was talking about "How to get I-T refunds faster" in the Indian context. The scheme described was pretty straight forward - a particular bank is sanctioned to issue refunds on behalf of the income tax department to the tax payers in the form of cheques or drafts. What caught my attention were the comments posted in response to the article. I was appalled to know that it takes "years together" to get the tax returns. I guess I have never filed for taxes back home, since I never earned when I was there. Or maybe, I was just uninformed (since I just know the fact that my dad filed his returns - nothing more), or maybe, I just didn't care. Anyways, things change... hopefully, for the better! :)

I always knew that the bureaucratic processes in India was painfully prolonged and lackadaisical. I had ascribed it to the apathy and corruption of the involved officials, that was in turn caused by poverty and a myriad of other reasons... and finally everything leading to the singular cause to which I attribute most of the woes crippling our country today, the humongous population. I had created a logical sequence of reasoning in my brain with the "gigantic population" as the shield for each and every problem faced by the country, ranging from poverty to illiteracy to terrorism to religious intolerance to corruption - well, my head had this bulwark as the only germane rationale for every possible issue plaguing India.

However, in this particular issue, this blockade started having cracks. According to most sources, only 3% of the Indian population pays taxes. I would say less than 1% is the actual figure (only professionals working in companies and government institutions where it is mandatory to have income tax withheld, actually pay taxes... few others do). So, it should not be that difficult a job to process the tax returns filed and distribute the returns appropriately. It is horrendous to even contemplate that it takes 3 to 4 years to get the returns back. Some might get it back within a year (not sure if anyone has), but even that is a long time. Does the government pay interest for the time period that the tax returns were not paid out?

I could not help, but compare the figures with those from the US. I know that it may not be reasonable to compare a developed country like USA with a developing one like India. However, I believe that instead of trying to find reasons for the unjustifiability of the scrutinisation, we should try do a very careful examination and employ methods that work into our mindset and ultimately, the bureaucracy. According to reliable sources, at least 45% of the US population pays taxes, though a higher percentage pays some sort of tax or the other (property tax et cetera). I myself have been filing taxes for the last 4 years - I get my refund within 10-20 days of filing my taxes. If there are any amendments that need to be made, it might take up to a month. Why this massive disparity... this ginormous chasm? On the one hand, I am not astonished by these numbers... on the other, I am saddened that these numbers fail to either surprise me or beleaguer me. Thankfully, I have not grown totally immune to these issues - they still rattle me more often than not.

The other facet of my consternation is that the major portion of the tax not paid is from the highest earning part of the population. Why should the working class be taxed while the other cadres earning more do not pay any taxes? Consider the controversy brewed around the tax returns filed by the senators here in the US... Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, refiled amended returns for previous years before being sworn in - this created a huge squabble, but he finally made it in. Though I agree that a huge portion of the politicians and bureaucrats in the US (as well as around the world) evade taxation as much as possible, they are held accountable here in the US, more often than not. Skeletons are drawn out of the closet and careers are ruined. In India, there is no accountability. The corrupt politician who has never paid any taxes what-so-ever could well be the prime minister or the president of our country.

Instead of digressing into a discussion on the corruption in politics and elsewhere, I'll try to come back to the topic under consideration. Is it possible for a change in the scenario? Where does the change start? Would I be paying taxes if I was not held accountable (a salaried employee of a company/government organisation)? Would I be ready to go through the hassle of the long-drawn bureaucratic process, as opposed to a shorter, back-door, easier way of bribing an official? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves, and understand that change cannot be expected from others if we are not ourselves ready for it. Bound by the practicalities of the situation, rather than trying to be idealistic (that I think might be painful to say the least, and hence may not last long), we should try our best to start on the right path in smaller, pragmatic ways.