UPSC got its English wrong: a contra response

 Apropos the article ‘UPSC got its English wrong’, the author Kankipati Rajesh, IAS;the article is filled with non-sequiturs and betrays his warped thinking, though he uses great terms like Right to Equality and Right
to Expression.

Where was the Equality when Mains allowed 2 optionals, written in multiple languages, not to mention about 18 language literatures as optionals? Where was the yardstick to evaluate Expression when candidates like doctors, engineers etc. who until then, never had any interest in Literatures , suddenly opt for them and learn (read mug-up) the syllabus in 2-3 months with guidance (read coaching classes) and fetch insanely high marks and get through the exam. Literatures optional were turned into a fraud on the system; where the
evaluators of literature papers tend to award high marks as the candidates would belong to their State. This could be the reason why, as the author himself says, ‘90 per cent of the candidates clearing the exam qualify with a language as an optional subject, and write the exam in regional language and that this is true for many other States of India’

Coming to the point of not allowing candidates to write Mains in regional languages, the author mentions that many students shift to English medium for their college education, but are not very proficient in English. Now why would students shift to English medium? It’s because they believe that English is inevitable in their future
careers and without English, their prospects would be grim. Why should the same thinking not be applied when applying for government jobs? Is public service a fair game to be filled with those who are not good at
English? For god’s sake, these are the people who would make policies, become bureaucrats, represent India’s interests. Though English is not the indicator for a good administrator, this nation deserves people
who are comfortable with English and not shy away from it. Sixty years of visceral bias against English in government service has produced umpteen number of highly placed officials who struggle to clearly
articulate in English what then intend to convey, as we see on television these days.

The author mentions that ‘During the training of IAS officers at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 40 per cent of the time spent in Phase-I of the programme is for the language of the State where the officer will serve’. When 40% of training can be spent of learning the regional language, and the trainee officers are fine with it; is it excessive to ask the candidates to write the exam in the medium in which they did their graduation? The reason they do not crib about spending 40% of time learning local language is that they are already selected and they don’t really care what they are asked to learn. The fight is all about getting through the exam, when, all of a sudden, they fall in love with Literatures and their mother tongues. Strange, isn’t it?

When there are loud calls for UPSC to make the exam more common and make it an equalizer for all the aspirants, these reforms were a step in the right direction. There is some merit in asking ‘when Hindi is
allowed as a language medium for the UPSC mains examination unconditionally, why not other languages like Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati? UPSC should think about only this one point and make some changes to address the concern here. All other changes are in the right spirit and should not be reversed.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/upsc-is-taking-a-step-in-the-right-direction/article4533258.ece

Hindu on paper but Buddhist at heart

You know what, now I totally disbelieve in god and his existence, not that I ever believed all that fully. Now I call him the vainglorious ****. Yes, its all bullshit. But does that give me the freedom to become immoral, inhuman, anti-human. No. Being pious only on the belief of existence of god is forced, fake piousness, fake goodness. Trying to be good under the fear that this force will punish for wrong doings is no goodness at all. Despite absence of any such force, a person should be naturally humane.

Now that I have dismissed the idea of god, I ve turned to what is called karma, or let’s say law of nature, which means what you sow is what you get. I want to test it, experience it and if it fails, dismiss that too. I would like to know what happens of people who pained me, which includes my mother. I want to see what law of nature does to them. Trust me, I do not wish ill for any of those who pained me. But I just want to sit and see what happens to them. Will the law of nature take its course and dispense justice, or will it just never act as people expect it to. Mind you again, I wish no ill for anyone. If karma, or god, or law of nature would come to me in private and secretly ask my wish, as to what should happen to people who pained me, and also promise to me that my answer will not be known to anyone in the world, I would truly say, I have no answer, I wish no ill for anyone. I will say, I only want the laws of nature, to work, and I want to see for myself if they really work. But my strong gut feeling is, there is nothing like law of nature, the sayings like as you sow so you reap is a painkiller for the helpless, to endure the pain. World works wildly, at the directions of wily, powerful, ruthless people with some role for uncertainty and chance. Not karma or law of nature. Because, I know, I have not done anything ever to put anyone to pain knowingly. But pain befalls me from multiple directions. I have already half dismissed karma and law of nature, but just want to have few more case studies to base it on.

But does that still give me the right to be inhuman. Again, No. Absolutely not. I would have to be what I am. That’s what separates the weak but pious, from the strong, powerful, power addicted, careless, arrogant types.

Oh, it was after i wrote these lines, a few months later, that i realized this is what is Buddhism.

I believed in it even before i read about it under the name of Buddhism.

Razakaar Owaisi, Wafaadar CM, Bekaar DGP

That Owaisi blurted out his ideas of reigning terror like his ancestors called Razakaars is undeniably established. But what is worth noting is, was he too foolish or was he too brave to speak his mind. I think it was his firm and tried and tested confidence that neither the Government, nor Police, nor the Judiciary would touch him, as in the past. It’s not his mistake you see. He did the same many times in the past with none of the agencies raising an eyebrow. 

The chief minister just does not act; in the face of the State, the people being challenged and threatened with violence. He thinks it is appropriate to laugh the issue off. Well, he is a politician, and nothing better can be expected of him. Politicians would stoop to any level to hold on to their power. These are the most apathetic people in society today. Their life and vision revolves around selfish interests and ends with it. A saying in urdu comes to my mind: “CM miyan to CM miyan, DGP miyan subhan allah”.  

So this DG of Police (Mr. Dinesh Reddy) thinks that Owaisi needs to be treated charitably. How shamelessly the DGP says that the delay of ten days in taking action was due to the fact that the speech was made in urdu and so it needed translation. He being in an All India Service, being the police chief of a state, sitting in the capital where urdu is a government recognized tongue, insults not only his position but also the police force by saying that police does not understand urdu. If the police cannot understand the spoken local idiom of urdu, then only god knows, in what bad form our police intelligence is and what would they do if terror related communications happen in Arabic. What good is this DGP for the public when he cannot understand the local tongue, cannot identify the threat to law and order and cannot use his authority?

An IPS officer, who cannot hesitate to assert his rights and immunities under the Constitution viz Article 311 etc, shows no enthusiasm at all to uphold the values of the same Constitution. Mr. DGP, did you not have any better words to say, to hide your spinelessness and lack of public interest? 

Coming back to the larger issue: it not just about a rabid politician making some intolerable statements. It’s about how the muslims in the state are being allowed to be misguided, misinformed, encouraged to sow hatred against the State, the non-muslims, how the State looks the other way while the radicalization of muslim youth has been happening for years.

Elders say, some 20 years ago, there were not as many bearded, capped, taliban (students, no offence intended) like people in the city. The burqa was also not as widely practiced. In the past few years, the number of Taliban like youth, even little kids, and burqa and naqab clad girls has grown exponentially. Where are these young men going, what are they learning, who do they listen to, what do they do to make a living, what are their aims, what do they plan to become, etc, it’s none of governments concerns so long as they have the muslim vote. Something is seriously wrong here. Why cannot the wise men see this?

Govt does not keep tabs on what religious preachers are teaching to the crowds of thousands in hundreds of mosques in this city. But every mosque needs some police force on every Friday to prevent violence. Govt does not control which Islamic, urdu tv channel is showing what nonsense. Govt does not care to stop the young minds being swayed by the falsities, provocations, medieval ideas being propagated by men like Owaisi. By turning a blind eye to all this, the govt is in a way encouraging radicalization.

Now if the government thinks that this is just people choosing to live their lives piously, then we have learnt nothing from history. There is nothing to be debated.

But seriously, how can the government, the intelligence, the police, etc not find something amiss with such radicalization in a sensitive place like Hyderabad? I’m sure everyone saw it, but our politics prevents speaking in the interest of the nation. Our politics of getting the minority vote snuffs out public interest from governmental action.

There is nothing wrong in aiming to get the muslim vote, but one should not do it at the expense of the larger national/public interest. If parties are serious about muslims and their development, then should not have alliances with terroristic parties like the MIM.

While the larger parties get on to their knees before leaders of MIM, competing in appeasement of the worst kind, from throwing huge iftar dinners, wearing Islamic symbols, to using threats of violence (hands which rise against muslims will be chopped), the real power was being gained by the Owaisis, who assumed to themselves the role of brokers of muslims’ welfare, from the parties in power.

Thanks to unclear majority, the Congress has become so weak, so dignity less, so self-worth less that the party does nothing even when the Owaisis openly deride, call names, and pooh pooh the Congress leaders by name. This Akbar Owaisi proclaims that the Congress dances to the commands of MIM, and this goes unchallenged what so ever from any congress man.

What has happened was only an outcome of years of inaction, apathy and perverted secularism. In a way, it is good that this Owaisi has clearly spoken his mind and this should give us an idea of what his thousands of followers too believe. The entire world now knows the terroristic plans of the MIM.

But have no hopes, the government will not learn any lesson.

Politicize rape !

I do not agree that the issue should not be politicized. The very reason why security of the aam aadmi and aam aurat is neglected is that it is not politicized as the issues of inflation, unemployment, subsidies, reservation etc. When an important problem is discussed by everyone with the same argument, everyone supporting it, it gets diluted and is as good as no one supporting firm action, just like the reservation for women's bill.

When we need political action, when we need an amendment to the bill, or a firm executive decision, how can we not politicize it. How can we make out those who are serious about doing something from those who are not, unless we politicize it? People vote based on what a political party promises it would do when elected to power.

This is how the most important issues are handled. Parties make their stand clear and the policies they would implement in the form of a manifesto. Only when we politicize the issue would a party care to put its action plan in its manifesto. It is purely because subsidies are highly politicized that the Congress party is using the cash transfer idea to limp back to power again.

The issue should absolutely be politicized and the national parties forced to include this in their manifesto and the steps they would take should be clearly spelt out.

Nothing great can happen without partisan politics.

So, let’s politicize women’s security.

Why did she dress that way ? Why do you care – the rationale please ?

Let me start by making it very clear. I truly believe in what the following statement says: “If I'm woman and I'm walking down the street naked, you STILL don't have a right to rape me”- Dick Gregory. 

I don’t really know who this Dick Gregory is (I wouldn’t have known this sentence without facebook) but the statement makes sense; in fact a society can be judged by the acceptance of such rights to its citizens; and if it is a truly liberal society. 

India is “outraged” at the incident in Delhi. But was India not outraged every time a rape happened. It’s like the virginity thing. You can’t lose it again and again.  India cannot be outraged every time the same crime happens. May be it’s the lack of adjectives to express the anguish, that media is forced to use outrage every time. But what would be the outcome of this outrage, most likely it will be nothing. Just another opportunity to make candle lit marches, celebrities making great statements, and people like me writing blogs like this one.

It is the political class that is to take action. But these incidents are too insignificant to make them act, because it just does not pay in terms of votes to take strong actions. The issue of safety of common man is not yet significant enough to form political alliances, extend incentives to the network of local to center level politicians. Security of women, their dignity, their rights (also of men), have to be issues as politically deciding as the ones like LPG price, inflation, petrol price, etc

Coming to the discussion on the statements like: Why did she dress that way, why did she go there at that time, what was she doing there etc.

When men (or women) say such things, there needs to be a differentiation of people based on what is their premise-conclusion process, and the reason behind making such statements.

There are those who are still stuck in a medieval time frame and just cannot tolerate an educated, independent woman, dressing the way she wants to, going where she wants to, and doing what she want to. These minds I feel mostly come from the rural pockets, but would also exist in cities; would also have a package of hard fixed notions of patriarchy, woman as a house-hold being, rights to man and responsibilities to woman, family honor whose onus is on woman, and other unreasonable and unacceptable thoughts of preference for male child etc etc.

When this set of people make such statements (why did she dress that way), they surely mean to find fault purely with the woman, the victim. They accept the society in its bad and ruthless form, they condone the inefficiency of police, and place the blame totally on her. The proponents of other medieval, woman-repressive practices of burkha too should fall within this category. It is this set of people who are to be thoroughly criticized, ostracized and forced to change.

But with every such incident, this set gets a reason to say why are right, a kind of vindication With every such crime, comes the risk of more people joining their side.

Now, coming to the other set of people who too say: why was she dressed that way, etc. But what is important is the reason why they say it. It is only out of concern for their loved ones, when they go out to areas not considered very safe. They are only suggesting precautions for safety of women. They are all for women’s rights and freedom but they also realize our society is not yet fully civilized enough to handle such liberalism. They do not accept the society the way it is, but they realize it would take long years for it to transform. But till then, should women not be careful, use their discretion and take precautions? They know police cannot be everywhere, all the time, though the police might do its best, but the responsibility of safety and security should first begin from oneself. When a mother tells her daughter no to stay out late, it is not to curb her rights, but to avoid risks. These are not the patriarchal, oppressive types who oppose women’s freedom. These are the liberal, yet practical minds who are concerned for the safety of women in this wild society.

Though the lines both the sets of people say are the same, the motive and the rationale is totally different.

Musilms need tolerance and they need to accept more

3 pieces that i read today, force me to think yet again about the minority question.

Is there anything that binds todays muslims in India to India?
The first one is the news article in today's paper about the need to bring changes in the Muslims Personal law which governs issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. Muslims demand special treatment and want the nation to allow them to follow their shariah law. They do not accept a single law to govern all citizens of this country.
This nation accepts a muslim personal law. A 13% muslim population has its word in a nation of 85% non-muslims.

The second  piece is about how muslims reject the local idiom, the indian languages, not even to write the names of shops and business' in the State language, leave alone learning and using it in their lives. They are again united in defying the State's decisions and get their way most of the times.

The third piece is a paragraph from the book 'The Argumentative Indian' by Amartya Sen which i was reading on the same day by chance.
This international intellectual forcefully argues that muslims should be accepted using the sanskrit word 'Swikriti', as if this country is persecuting its minorities.

After reading the about the muslim personal law and the language issue, is it wrong to say that it is the muslims who should be more accepting of their duties, their history, their local culture, heritage etc and not just only fight for rights and concessions from the State but also recognize their duties.

If Parsees never had such problems living in this country, it was because they merge, they respect, they accept the local culture, they blend in with the local, just a sugar blends in milk giving a sweet taste; even though they migrated and were never a part of the indian heritage. Whereas, muslims in india, though most of them are converts and were Hindus at one time, they just do not blend in.

Did not Naipaul point out the same after his tours of convert muslim nations?

My temple attire

In dhoti when i was at an ancient temple in my State. First time that i wore it, and i was not uncomfortable.