I never believed it when my parents/grand-parents used to say that the whole world is going astray with the new ways and all that. I refuted their sayings with indignation. But the present elite democratic representatives in the parliament are making alarming progress towards shaking up this faith.
I'm talking about the 49.5% reservation quota for "backward" classes. How much more ridiculous can that get? You want to give your "backward" classes 50% reservation? I have a better idea - why don't just feed them free for the rest of their lives with, say, 10 lakhs per annum? Or is that too low - you say some "upper-caste"s are earning more? Ok what is holding you from raising the figure then? After all - the others are there to pay it off from their taxes, right? Surely, if they don't pay off for the atrocities done by their forefathers, who will?
Ok, on more rational terms, if you are really bent upon providing some infrastructure to pull up or motivate these groups, give them some extra facilities at the ground level - the primary and secondary levels maybe. How can you attribute a person's not making to graduate and PG courses, after 12 years of schooling in same institutions, to his "class" being a backward one!! If they cant make it, they simply don't deserve it. His efforts during the schooling, and his abilities decide how he performs among others, and his rank amongst others is what he deserves.
And honestly, how this move will help neutralising the racial barriers, is a total mystery to me. In fact, what it has surely spurned off, and which will only increase if this bill comes to pass, is a new segregation mentality among students (and others too) - between the ones who get through using reservations and the ones who wrestle it out fairly (yes, I use the term 'fairly' since I believe the other is definitely unjust). The latter group will look down upon the former - and quiet rightly so - because it will remain as a glaring fact that the non-reservation candidates are intellectually superior and better performers than the ones using quotas. What will follow next is that institutions and companies will start to scan candidates to identify who might be a "reservation" class candidate and who not - thereby advocating a new era of racism in this century. (Or would the government then move to enforce that all companies too have a reservation in their employee system? I would love to see that day though!) It follows that, for their own benefits, candidates should not opt to use quotas even if they can, and get themselves placed where they rightly deserve by merit.
If something must be done for the "backward" classes, one better option would be providing them who gets through with merit, a 100% sponsorship from the government. That would be a motivator and would not undermine standards either. In fact, the most prominent discrimination now in India after 60 years of independence is the one arising out of financial status, and not out of discriminations practised 100 years ago.
I never used to pay any attention to the last name of people, like the way perhaps my previous generation do. However, I always asked them out - since they were part of their names - and only the first name I considered to be an incomplete information about the person's identity. The last name was nothing more than a part of the name. But if this bill comes to pass, I know I'll become conscious of the last name denoting the class - and I'll be trying to figure if that is a "quota" class - effectively myself judging whether the person is 'good-enough' or below standards. I hope this situation doesn't come to pass.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Extracts from my paper diary.
Extracts from my paper diary:
"I take up the pen again. The keyboard is inadequate. The blog entries, as I'm finding out progressively, are becoming more and more synthetic than natural. Consequently, they are becoming less and less satisfying for me to write. I guess, given the time and perspective of my growing up, I'll never be able to replace the dear old pen and paper with anything else. I do write a lot using the keyboard and read a lot from the screen, but its never as gratifying as when I do that using good old paper. I'm getting into the electronic age, taking up a hardcore profession in IT, is passionate about the latest hardwares, but somehow and somewhere, all these still have failed to make absolute inroards into me. I'm still much more peaceful with the pen and paper, and always will be, these things having got deep rooted into my veins right from the age of the onset of my senses into the wonderful and infinite realm of words.
The only reason why new things get opposed by the comparatively older generation is because they cannot adapt themselves to the new standards and ways of living, the flexibility of their mind having gotten eroded with age. They just don't feel comfortable with these new ways, and hence oppose these. Not out of any moral standards or value system."
"I take up the pen again. The keyboard is inadequate. The blog entries, as I'm finding out progressively, are becoming more and more synthetic than natural. Consequently, they are becoming less and less satisfying for me to write. I guess, given the time and perspective of my growing up, I'll never be able to replace the dear old pen and paper with anything else. I do write a lot using the keyboard and read a lot from the screen, but its never as gratifying as when I do that using good old paper. I'm getting into the electronic age, taking up a hardcore profession in IT, is passionate about the latest hardwares, but somehow and somewhere, all these still have failed to make absolute inroards into me. I'm still much more peaceful with the pen and paper, and always will be, these things having got deep rooted into my veins right from the age of the onset of my senses into the wonderful and infinite realm of words.
The only reason why new things get opposed by the comparatively older generation is because they cannot adapt themselves to the new standards and ways of living, the flexibility of their mind having gotten eroded with age. They just don't feel comfortable with these new ways, and hence oppose these. Not out of any moral standards or value system."
Monday, April 03, 2006
A Word About Relationships
Many times I have come across the forms asking me to fill in my thoughts about various relationships like love, friendship, etc, or like 'what you have learnt from past relations' and so on. The truth be told, it is a big question, and any attempt to express or define such things in a few words is impractical. Nevertheless, certain recent incidents have sent my mind spinning on this very topic, and hence I'll attempt to scribe some of my present thoughts on some aspects of this matter.
What makes relationships last? A question of endless debate, which in my opinion, can never be generally answered, since no two persons on this earth can be exactly alike - meaning every relationship is unique in its own perspective. Instead, I'm presently thinking of some characteristics common to the lasting relationships.
An interesting feature is the balance between intimacy and distance. Relationships which don't maintain a minimum distance tend not to last long. A distance born not out of difference in opinions or indifference, but out of respect of the individuality of the person, out of acceptance that the person is a separate being in totality. The art of maintaining a relationship, the magic characteristic of a lasting relationship, is that perfect mixture of the individual space - a minimum distance, coupled with a closeness enough to feel united.
The deepest and most lasting friendships are marked not by the closest indulgences, the time spent together measured in hours, the number and depth of secrets shared, extreme possessiveness, and so on, but are characterised with a feeling of freedom, a feeling of peace, a feeling of 'we' even without being too aware of it, the measure of time spent in terms of activities done together and most importantly, without any binding expectations or duties.
Without any bindings or duties? Doesn't friendship (and relationships) by definition mean some minimum expectations or duties? Apparently, but not really. For a true friend, you never feel 'bonded' to go or do anything - you just feel like doing it entirely on your own accord - it comes naturally - more out of your own 'need' than out of the feeling that you 'should'. And the same also holds true for any other intimate relationship which has deep foundations.
At the risk of contradicting my own earlier phrase "The art of maintaining a relationship" which might indicate that relationship is something you consciously create out of your own accord and maintain with your rationale, I'll here say that the truest and deepest relationships you can never consciously create. Its something that happens to you. It happens out of your own real character and attitude, as a reaction which you cant control. You can polish and disguise your character and personality, but your true self always will respond when it meets a match or its like.
"The true friends are the ones with whom you can sit by the porch for an hour saying nothing and then walk away feeling as if it was the best conversation you have ever had".
Lastly before I finish, I'll once again state my oft-repeated saying - that there is always a level of understanding beyond your present one. Some day, I might be writing entirely opposite views on this very matter. In fact, I do hope I do, since then I'll again be reassured that I still have not lost the capacity for learning!...
What makes relationships last? A question of endless debate, which in my opinion, can never be generally answered, since no two persons on this earth can be exactly alike - meaning every relationship is unique in its own perspective. Instead, I'm presently thinking of some characteristics common to the lasting relationships.
An interesting feature is the balance between intimacy and distance. Relationships which don't maintain a minimum distance tend not to last long. A distance born not out of difference in opinions or indifference, but out of respect of the individuality of the person, out of acceptance that the person is a separate being in totality. The art of maintaining a relationship, the magic characteristic of a lasting relationship, is that perfect mixture of the individual space - a minimum distance, coupled with a closeness enough to feel united.
The deepest and most lasting friendships are marked not by the closest indulgences, the time spent together measured in hours, the number and depth of secrets shared, extreme possessiveness, and so on, but are characterised with a feeling of freedom, a feeling of peace, a feeling of 'we' even without being too aware of it, the measure of time spent in terms of activities done together and most importantly, without any binding expectations or duties.
Without any bindings or duties? Doesn't friendship (and relationships) by definition mean some minimum expectations or duties? Apparently, but not really. For a true friend, you never feel 'bonded' to go or do anything - you just feel like doing it entirely on your own accord - it comes naturally - more out of your own 'need' than out of the feeling that you 'should'. And the same also holds true for any other intimate relationship which has deep foundations.
At the risk of contradicting my own earlier phrase "The art of maintaining a relationship" which might indicate that relationship is something you consciously create out of your own accord and maintain with your rationale, I'll here say that the truest and deepest relationships you can never consciously create. Its something that happens to you. It happens out of your own real character and attitude, as a reaction which you cant control. You can polish and disguise your character and personality, but your true self always will respond when it meets a match or its like.
"The true friends are the ones with whom you can sit by the porch for an hour saying nothing and then walk away feeling as if it was the best conversation you have ever had".
Lastly before I finish, I'll once again state my oft-repeated saying - that there is always a level of understanding beyond your present one. Some day, I might be writing entirely opposite views on this very matter. In fact, I do hope I do, since then I'll again be reassured that I still have not lost the capacity for learning!...
Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Enigmas of Life: Once Again
A strange concoction. That is life. At least now, for me. Sometimes, engulfed in a swirling maze, you drift along. Knowing not why things are the way they are or why things be the way they be. One time you are so sure about something, the very next moment, a small incident changes everything and puts things in an entirely new perspective. How good is any state if such a very small thing can bring so radical a change? (Or do we attach too much weight on that 'revealing' small incident - which maybe is not that revealing after all?)
Things get happening around you. Things on which you have no control. Apparently no control - because, suddenly or maybe always at some corner of your mind, you realise that you do have complete control, but you know not why you don't feel the urge for it. What if, at this juncture, you are again faced with the odd question of why would one think of changing the flow at all?
You flow away, drifting, just going where it takes you. Sometimes, you have no real idea why you do certain things, except that its done that way, a justification which is obviously ridiculous to even a child of 6 years of age, but which seems good enough for you(!!). Worse, sometimes you just go on doing certain things, just because the thing gets done that way engulfing you, even when you feel in some distant corner of your alive mind that there is no logic in that, and that it should have been avoided in all rationale.
Shakespeare presented Hamlet with the dilemma 'to be or not to be'. That might sometimes seem simpler than when you know the answer to that question, but you keep wondering why you aren't following on that answer with acts.
You face life. You deal, you fight, you strive, you survive. But why?
Confusing, ain't it? You bet! Am I confused? Maybe, maybe not. Probably just that I'm going through a bad patch. That's all. (he..he..!)
And maybe I'll delete this post after some days, when, reading it through in some more stable and normal mood, I will find it ridiculous. Until then....
Things get happening around you. Things on which you have no control. Apparently no control - because, suddenly or maybe always at some corner of your mind, you realise that you do have complete control, but you know not why you don't feel the urge for it. What if, at this juncture, you are again faced with the odd question of why would one think of changing the flow at all?
You flow away, drifting, just going where it takes you. Sometimes, you have no real idea why you do certain things, except that its done that way, a justification which is obviously ridiculous to even a child of 6 years of age, but which seems good enough for you(!!). Worse, sometimes you just go on doing certain things, just because the thing gets done that way engulfing you, even when you feel in some distant corner of your alive mind that there is no logic in that, and that it should have been avoided in all rationale.
Shakespeare presented Hamlet with the dilemma 'to be or not to be'. That might sometimes seem simpler than when you know the answer to that question, but you keep wondering why you aren't following on that answer with acts.
You face life. You deal, you fight, you strive, you survive. But why?
Confusing, ain't it? You bet! Am I confused? Maybe, maybe not. Probably just that I'm going through a bad patch. That's all. (he..he..!)
And maybe I'll delete this post after some days, when, reading it through in some more stable and normal mood, I will find it ridiculous. Until then....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)