Despite those innumerable monetary priveleges heaped upon Dalits and other such *backward* classes (like bare minimum admission/examination fees etc), if they don't do well in the higher echelons of studies, then I don't think it's worth finding fault with the normal salaried people (i.e. the ubiquitous "middle class!") who you seem to say, are able to grow & nurture meritorious capabilities only because they can *afford* to do so. The problem of fostering talent amongst the backward classes has more to do with their morbidly-easy-going & taken-for-granted lifestyle that arises from the assured supply/backup from govt.
Two points. 1) Rural Dalits are the only ones who are ever discriminated in their lives in India, and reservations can be justified only for them. Since it is tougher to enforce, it is useful to see if a child's parents have benefitted from reservation. Children of Dalits who have already benefitted from the reservations have got a share of opportunities due to reservations. So, one can expect their children to compete with the rest.
Now, the question is, how do we uplift the rural Dalits? That should the top priority of the country.
2) By the way, companies have their own strategies to pick the people who deliver. They look at learnability, management and commiunication skills while recruiting and not just the grades.
jagannathan, you are basically trying to convince following things a)High score does not necessarily mean he competent b)underprivilidged can not affort higher education c)Low score does not necessarily mean incompetent
Coming to points a and c, if you look at the applications received for every requirement in software industry, it exceeds 100. Even if somebody puts a cut-off of 80, they are getting thousands of applications. Screening and interviewing becomes unimaginable if there is no cut-off. I agree with you that, persons with high score may not necessarily be very skilled and talented. But probability of getting a skilled person from high merit group is much more than that of low merit group. Otherwise there would no meaning to our education system. Bottom line is that if an individual can not even score 60 or 65% there is more chance that he is not good. For Infosys cut off is 65%. That too they dont ask anything technical questions but puzzles for which you need to be very brainy. Coming to other point that underpriviledged can not afford high education, simple solution would be provide subsidised education for those who can not afford(no cast based please!!!)
Its correct that talent is innate and skill can be learned. But the problem while taking a person into a specific jo b is that how to judge his talents and skills!
Its very difficult to judge the talent and all the means of judging it require some basic skills, e.g. on very basic level you may give an IQ test but that also requires that you have basic understanding of language and atleast training in that type of thinking process
other than that in technical field people withh good talent have good skills also , and skills required for core technical jobs is not such that you can easily impart it to a talents person. Its a process which start from very begining. So givei quotos in education supportin people from poor backgrounds is ok! But at last he has to be ablt to surpass the competitive world!
Mr. Jagannathan.. there's nothing new which can give any kind of thought in solving this crisis. But, whatever you wrote at the end is not advisable. You are telling Infosys, Wipro and others to invest some crores because they have it and if they don't do it, they are termed short-sighted. Pls. tell me, would you give away your money just like that just because you have it? And, its not Infosys or Wipro's business just throw away the money and follow it up. Whats the Govt. doing for about 50 years now? Now, they are just passing the buck. If the govt. is not accountable, atleast these Infosys/Wipro companies are answerable for the customers.
So, its very easy for you to say this. But, putting into practice - you are the same as politicians. Let others do; I'll just watch.
On the other hand, I really feel pity for the downtrodden ones - whether SC/ST or Muslims or Brahmin or whoever. Lets not divide them again. Lets just label them as economically weak. Thats it.
RE:This is not fair..
by Vishnu on Sep 08, 2004 03:29 AM
I absolutely agree with you. Once Azim Premji said - "One should create wealth to distribute it. otherwise what we will be distributing is poverty". that's exactly what our governments with socialistic policies did till recently - distribute poverty. now let's not go back in time again. Let the government focus on providing better educational facilities and let the businesses create wealth for good salaries - that's what the common man wants.
Hi, What should poor brahmin do for living? Why not have reservations based only on economic status? Having reservation is unconstitutional since it violates fundamental principle of equal opportunity and equality of all citizens irrespective of their cast or religion. Why should rich dalit have more opportunities than poor brahmin?
RE:what should we do?
by Ramki on Sep 07, 2004 05:13 PM
Kudos mate. I was also looking for this point.Equality.Whatever be the argument how do you deny right for a forward caste having all the relevant qualifications.Give everything in education for the economically weak but just dont provide them free lunch because people need to know that you have to work hard for your food.
The writer has tried to obfucsate the issue. When corporate sector refers to merit, it means skill to do the job along with theoritical knowledge reflected by degree. IIMs will never take a person who does not have the skills to be a manager.The tests ensure that. As far as Dalits unbale to afford education, the institutes have scholarships and also reservation. They too are passing out with MBA degree same as others and after that the field should be open. Private Sector has nothing to do further. Its governments job to ensure quality education to all weaker sections. Why should corporate do the work of government.
I do not agree that reservation in private or public sector should be made mandatory.Now the so called oppressed or deprived class of last five decades have tranformed into a middle or upper class by availing the reservation policy.It is now time to look at the lower class which can not even afford education of their child because of drastic increase in school fee in private/public schools.How can we expect an uneducated boy/girl of downtrdden class to reap the benefits of our reservation policy? In my opinion if our policy makers of past and present have given more emphasis to the good quality free of cost education to the children of oppressed class ,then it would have benefited them more than the existing reservation system.It is a fact that ample of talent is inherent in the poor section of society and they can compete with others without any reservation provided the government takes the responsibility to educate them.Our business enterprizes have done commendable service to society.Instead of pressing them to adopt reservation policy, goverment and NGO should evolve a policy to establish infrastructure for promoting education of children of poor class with their help.
I think the Tata's, the Murthy's and Premji's in India are already doing their bit thro their huge contribution to the IT Dept. coffers; I don't think they need to pay any more than that. The way you put it these premier business would be handing out their monies to every lazy tom dick and harry who begs for it.
RE:Don't The Murthy's and the Premji's pay tax
by the_gr8_indian on Sep 07, 2004 04:24 PM
Very aptly said
I am from one of the most premium institutes in India where there is quota for SC/ST. I did not know any one of my SC/ST college mates coming from "downtrodden" strata. The so-called "hapless, downtrodden, socially & econimically backward" were sons of IAS/IPS/Professors/. Infact its laughable to say that reservation now benifits the downtrodden as it has become the tool of creamy layer within the socially backward for perpetuating this unfair advantage
This is not because these people are full of "merit" (that is, having the right talents for managerial jobs) but because they have the financial means and the will to get into these career-enhancing institutions.
I guess the author goes somewhat overboard here. You should realise that there are enough people with good financial means in competition. So these people are indeed full of "merit". May be there are more meritous people who are being left out, but discrediting something in this manner can not be appreciated.
Again - disadvantaged sections being defined on cast/religion/creed boundaries never did and never would appeal to me. What exactly matters is precise social and economic background - in which I consider economic disadvantage as a fair-er meaure.
