"Reservation in Private Sector"

"Merit is not the only criterion for employment" these are the words of our great visionary prime minister Man Mohan Singh, who is supposed to be the visionary who brought India to present state we are daring to challenge the whole world then, how can he change so much within few months of attaining power, so much so that he has decided to pull back India to the same state what it was 15 years back. Now before discussing the impacts of Reservation on country’s growth first of all let us see the concept of this greater equality among equals. It says that few seats (few can be as many as 65% of total) in every job opportunity should be reserved for socially and economically deprived people. I don't have problem with the very concept but let us analyze what is a socially deprived. Does that mean that a person carrying a particular surname is socially deprived? Does that mean a well to do man whose ancestors were not allowed to enter a temple or wasn't allowed to take water from a village well 300 years ago should be given preference over a poor Brahmin who don't have enough to have two time meals in the present? Should he be punished throughout his life for what his ancestors did? Is it wise to reserve some seats in medical/engineering/civil services etc. on the basis of caste, when we know that the socially and economically person whom we are portraying in our mind to give reservation, can never reach to that stage, where he can enjoy the benefits of reservation? One more flaw i find with this system of "greater equality among equals" is that if this system was so successful that it needed to extend to private sector also than why couldn't it produce results in past 54 years of its existence?

Now some of my friends will definitely ask what it has to do with country's growth, so let’s think over the reasons which forced us to move towards disinvestment. The biggest reason was definitely the inefficiency present in the PSUs and suddenly all those PSUs which are privatized has started producing profits. So its clear that quality of management and work force definitely has a very strong impact on the performance of the organization, then how can we compromise with the quality of man power and even force those private players to do the same. Now some peoples keep raising question of social responsibility of the private players, but does that mean in the name of social responsibility they should compromise with their basic business values and pay those from a reserved class an equal amount what they would have paid a more deserving candidate.

The main essence of our constitution was to give a right to equality and eliminate all these caste-ism and differences in our society by giving them equal opportunity but it seems those things are already forgotten amidst all this bull's fight for power and in pursuit to please the minorities. A person can't contest from a particular constituency from where he belongs just because this constituency is reserved for a particular section of the community (or for a particular sex, as the case may be in the years to come) then what happened to the fundamental right of "right to elect" (which is already lost in present day's booth capturing etc.) and "get elected". So this means that we are doing discrimination in reverse direction in the name of social justice. The arrangement of reservation was meant for 10 years only but still it’s continuing because political parties don't want to loose their minority votes especially those so called secular forces, though they are the ones who force the constitution to differentiate between an upper caste and lower caste. So the obvious question is what should be the criterion for reservation. So as far as the essence of constitution is concerned it’s not wrong to be liberal for the downtrodden but the criterion has to such that it doesn't become a puppet in the hands of politicians. It’s quite obvious that we can't say that if a person carries a particular surname he is the needy. So the only solution that seems viable is to fix some seats on the basis of economical status and give free primary education etc. to every one so that their are no difference in the opportunity for anyone.

Nobody will do it?

Once there were three Indians Everybody, Somebody and Nobody. Out of those three only Nobody was a bit serious and righteous person devoted to his duty. One day all of them got a piece of work to do. But Everbody said that he wont do it because it won't make any difference even if he don't do the work because Somebody will definitely do it. So as it turned out to be, Somebody was also not very dedicated so finally Nobody did that. Finally as always happens, once Nobody does a work Somebody will raise the issue and Everybody will start fighting for the cause, but the question is Everybody is so concerned about that work why don't he himself do it but still Nobody knew the answer. Everybody knows that in India, whatever may happen Nobody will do the work but still he will wait Somebody to do that work . That is the main hinderance to country's progress but Nobody cares. So who will take India on the path to glory,answer is still Nobody because EverybodySomebody will atleast give the solution than also you are wrong because as I told you Nobody will give the solution.So what's the solution to the problem. Its simple stop looking for somebody (especially if you consider me in to be somebody :) ) to work, start working yourself.

Survival of the fittest

When Charles Darwin had proposed the theory of survival of fittest, it is highly unlikely that he might had thought about its implications in philosophy. When he proposed the theory the only thing he intended was to study the anthropology but that theory not only solved the mistery of human evolution but the behaviour of human. The human was more apt for the conditions of that time so he survived the challanges amongst all those species of that time but i don't know if we can call the success of some human being in the society where as the failure of others as the sequel to the same theory. In the present day world just see around, the only thing you will find is the immense competition amongst the same species homosapiens over the others. Take the case of anything from day to day life to something very specific like education or business, it seems the only aim of the man is to prove himself superior over the others. He will do almost anything to prove that, I have always had a doubt that if a person can perform well at a specific time that proves that he is a better huaman being. If human survived the drastic changes of climate at that time where as few reptiles could not, does that make huaman being a superior species. I do have some reservations about that conclusion because that only indicates that man was good enough to face the changes of climate but that doesn't prove that he is superior in every aspect. So coming back to competitions prevailing in the society I will say that the better performance of a man in a perticular moment only indicates that he is better in that particular field at that particular instant but saying that he is better than the others who could not perform equally well in that test will be wrong. So we do need to change the notion " survival of fittest". Its not correct to say that only fittest survives because we can't define fittest without taking one more dimension i.e. time into accout. So if we want to apply Darwin's theory in the real world, we will have to remember great Albert Einstein also, to reach at any conclusion. So the more apt version would be to say that only those who are fittest at a particular time when they are tested will determine their survival not their absolute strengths.

The Confession of an American

As far as I can think I don't find anything wrong with my I ideas. I haven't done anything wrong till now. Its just your fault that you are not grown enough to understand my highly enlightened thoughts. If I feel that there is only one country in this whole world whats wrong with it?
I am a highly esteemed citizen of United States of America. I can afford to think so because if you claim that there are hundreds of countries across the globe and you are also living in one of them, then you are wrong. Don't forget you are not living because you or your nation deserved that. It's because of the simple reason that our greatest President wanted you to exist. So your life carries no weight in front of the life of those greatest Americans who are allowing the other countries to exist except a few, after all we are also human beings and can make small mistakes. Look at our greatness, we killed only few thousands in retaliation to the september 9/11 which killed so many Americans. After all those who died were great Americans not Kashmiris or Mumbaites or Palestinians . How could we keep quite, but still its the greatness of our nation that we only ruined two nations, after all we were capable to ruin many more.

We are the ones who are puttiing a real fight to eliminate terrorism and the seriousness of our fight is clear from the fact that to achieve it we can go to any extent, we are making alliances with the nations, our important partners in combatting terrorism are Israel and Pakistan, the countries which are the most capable of combatting the terrorism. After all you can't expect inexperianced countries like India to help us. India even could not curb the terror in its own land how it will help us. On the other hand look at Israel and Pak, they are capable of carrying on terror(and obviously why should we bother about it,they are not Americans,what will happen even if few thounsand of Indians die out of a billion), so they can help us well to eliminate it also.

Now, I am sure you people must be saying all sort of things when it comes to trade practices and subsidy policies i.e is the subsidy our Govt'. is giving to farmers in US while opposing it when other nations do the same but what is wrong with it, after all that farmer belongs to the great nation of America. The great America which is helping out all other nation of world, freeing then from the claws of the dictators and giving them a stable rule under the flag of USA in exchange of almost negligible materialistic gains like crude etc.

I hope I have been quite successful in proving myself correct, why I voted for George Bush and I hope you will understand my stand. Anyways even if you don't agree with it, I don't care, after all I am a great citizen of a great nation, why should i care for you. This is my greatness that I am still reasoning with you to explain my stand otherwise everyone knows that for me you people doesn't exist because for me there is only one nation in this world, USA.

THE PURPOSE

.

A question has always been hovering in my mind that "What is the purpose of all this chaos around me?" I see people running blindly to achieve something which they don't posses right now. If they get that they start running for the other, so it has just become a never ending wild goose chase. Now some of the, what so called progressive people, will start questioning my vary concept and definitely the only counter view they can produce is that this helps the human being in achieving the progress. I know I am trying to prove a point which is definitely difficult one to assimilate but still the fact remains that progress is a relative term. I want to ask what is the perception of progress? Is there any definite answers like everybody having car or may be every body having all the materialistic things required to lead a comfortable life. But definitely this not the complete answer.What is the use of having all that stuff if we are mantally unsatisfied and unable to use that? This is the case for every contestant of this wild goose chase contest. Through out their life they think that if they will have this thing they will be happy but after some time they realize that they could achieve that thing but still couldn't get that happiness because now they need the other thing.

If having materialistic things was the last thing that could give happiness than our forefathers wouldn't have spend a moment in their life happily.Take for example someone may think that having a Merc or having a big banglow will give him great happiness but this is not the case because our forefathers didn't have all these things but still they were happy reason being that they didn't know what is a Car or even they didn't know what is fan. So the point is that materialistic things can't be a scale of happiness, its just that they are capable of making you unhappy if you keep thinking about them all the day. So the message I want to give is, not that we should give up working harld to achieve all those materialistic things, but instead i suggest that we should realize that these things are need for human being but not the gateway to happiness. So if we can get all those things we should feel happy but we should not regret if we don't have them.