I came across this good article on what ails the IIMs. I agree whole-heartedly about students being disinterested in the second year, lack of research, infrastructure in some of the old IIMs being bad etc, but here are my add-ons to the article.
National demand of 20,000 IIM students per year:
I agree that 1,500 is a paltry number when it comes to number of pass-outs every year. But I really don’t think a 20,000 count is where we want to head. Looking at the industry recruitment trends, there is sure some room for say 2500 more, but I feel it would be a disaster to increase the number any point beyond. For one, there are other good B-schools that chip-in in the gap. Two, with that kind of a massive number, there would just be too much of difference within the IIMs. In other words, there would be a huge quality difference between the top IIM students and the bottom ones, which isn’t really good for anyone. Remember, the numero uno reason why IIMs, in general, are considered good is because of the quality of intake. If numbers swell and intake goes down in quality, it is something to worry about. And salaries are something you can’t ignore. You really wouldn’t want to pass out from an IIM only to know that some of the non-IIT Engineering pass-outs earn more than you.
About International ranking:
The other issue that comes often is how IIMs are never among the top-50 B-schools in the world. Those surveys are biased alright, but am I the only person to think that these international surveys are heavily biased against non-US B-schools? Does everyone really agree that 55 out of the top-100 B-schools are in US? Is education throughout the rest of the world that bad?
Here’s one more: 15% of the overall weightage is given to salary upon graduation, which is always measured in dollar terms. Someone go and tell them there is something called Purchase Parity adjustment and Cost-of-Living adjustment. In other words, Indian salaries don’t stand a chance when converted to dollar for rankings, but is more than enough for a king-size life in India. This 15% alone could be the deciding factor.
My point is: IIMs don’t stand a chance in these surveys even if they deserve it.
Student diversity
Agreed that 70% of IIMs are engineers, but I wouldn’t call it staid, particularly in the Indian context where Engineering is given so much of importance. It’s not that talented people from all streams are not given a chance and only engineers are pulled in. Most of the good guys go to engineering. I agree that IIMs can't stand a chance in international rankings due to the huge weightage to salary factor. another argument is that IIMs are not comparable to foreign B schools because IIMs basically impart entry-level management education to freshers. But even if you keep that aside, there is too much ailing the IIMs to score in other areas. But you would generally agree that a LOT needs to be corrected in the IIMs to even consider calling them global level. Yes, things will gradually improve and mature over time. Or maybe competition from US B schools post FDI in higher education will be that one-tight-slap to get HRD ministry to put their act together.
As for the statement that 'most of the good guys go to engineering', i think we are wise enough to see how blanket and generalising that sounds. Do consider that CAT is too superloaded on quant-skills for non-engineering applicants to show their abilities. We suck at networking and people management. We Indians can quantify things and crunch numbers like Gods but we totally suck at looking people in the eye and not speaking utter globe while trying to sell them something. No amount of MBA classes can repair that, only the real world can. So i wouldn't confuse good number crunching aptitude with good managerial/leadership aptitude.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Should IIMs go 'global' - 2
The war for 'talent'
If the IIM's wish to scale intake of students, they need additional teaching talent. And that is an extremely scarce resource...
Can IIM professors be ‘world class’ on Third World pay scales? Mukesh Ambani certainly does not think so. At a recent Board of Governors meeting he asked the institute to 'prepare the ground for compensating faculty adequately in line with other leading global business schools.'
Because, at current pay scales, an IIM professor with 20 years experience gets paid far less than what a 24 year old earns as starting salary on passing out of the institute.
As IIM Calcutta’s Prof. Anup Sinha bluntly puts it, “In India, you are either very passionate about teaching, or probably you didn't land up the job you wanted so you decide to hang around teaching in a b-school… teaching is not very financially rewarding.”
Of course, academics is not the most lucrative career option anywhere in the world. But the disparity between IIM payscales and corporate ones is so high that it definitely turns off those inclined towards the profession at entry stag. And erodes the self esteem of those who, despite it all, choose to go the academic way. Certainly not the best of HR policies!
Kellogg Dean Dipak Jain believes that the promotion system in Indian institutes need changes. " Every professor gets the same compensation as the other. Incentive system must change if these institutes have to be on global scene."
The other issue is that too much emphasis is laid on being a 'career academic'. Most IIM profs would not have significant corporate experience before doing their PhDs. In a practitioner led 'science' this is a disadvantage.
What's more, IIMs are simply not open to the idea of mid-career shifters. People who may have spent say 15-20 years in the industry and now wish to shift out of corporate life and into academics full time. Yes, there are 'visiting professors' with such backgrounds but to join full time a PhD is a minimum qualifying criteria.
And there is definitely a 'we need to protect our turf' mindset because of which this is unlikely to change. Although as J. Philip, Director XIME points out: In the first wave of Directors and senior Professors at IIMs, one would notice a good number of non-Ph.Ds, starting with K.T. Chandy and Hiten Bhaya of IIM-C, Ravi Mathai of IIM-A, N.S. Ramaswamy of IIM-B, Professors Nitish De and Iswar Dayal of IIM-C, and many others...."
Attracting international students
This brings me to the last and crucial ingredient required for a top quality institute: top quality students.
The 'global brand name' the IIMs have today rests to a large extent on the laurels of its graduates. In this, the selection and filtration process has played a crucial role. There are those who argue that inputs at the campus 'hardly matter' given the fact that this is the creme de la creme of the student population.
But I for one am not so cynical. The 'exposure' combined with 'opportunities' is what produces the X factor.
One of the only drawbacks of studying in an IIM is the lack of diversity in the student population.
A huge number of IITians and engineers, sprinkling of C A s and BComs and a tiny number of ‘others’. Any top 20 B school in the US would, in contrast, attract a far more heterogeneous and multicultural population.
Well, student exchange programs at IIMs have led to a significant ‘foreign student’ presence on campus in recent years. But would any of these students consider joining for the entire 2 year program? Probably not. Unless IIMs move up significantly in Global Business School rankings. And there - is another BIG anomaly.
Foreign rankings - far from perfect.
As detractors gleefully point out from time to time, IIMs feature 'nowhere' in the world B school rankings. For example, IIM Ahmedabad was the only Indian B school to feature in the top 100 of the Economist Intelligence Unit rankings.
Shameful, you say? Well dig a little deeper and here's what you find. If B school rankings conducted by Indian magazines are flawed - this is no better!
The Economist arrives at its rankings by studying 4 broad parameters:
1) open new career opportunities and/or career advancement (35%)
2) personal development and educational experience (35%)
3) to increase salary (20%)
4) potential to network (10%).
Each parameter has sub-parameters:
eg Open new career opportunities (33% overall weightage) is comprised of:
Diversity of recruiters (25%)
Number in jobs three months after graduation (25%)
Jobs found through the careers service (25%)
Student assessment (25%)
If you compare the ranking of IIM A (ranked 69) with Stanford (ranked 4), IMD Lausanne (ranked 5) and surprise! IESE Business School - University of Navarra, Barcelona (ranked 1) there are some shockers.
IIM A scores the HIGHEST possible rank 1 out of 100 on some criteria ('opens new career opportunities') and the LOWEST possible rank 100 out of 100 on other criteria (student quality and diversity).
As only 1% of IIM students are 'international' a low rank in 'diversity' is understandable. But quality? The applicant to places ratio at 532: 1 is the highest among all colleges! However, one component of student quality is 'average GMAT score' - which is not applicable to IIMs.
This, if guessed, means we score a zero in an area which counts for 12.5% of the "Personal Development and Educational Experience" parameter which has an overall weightage of 35 out of 100. Which is like leaving one 4 mark question in a paper of 100 marks for no fault of your own...
Then the Economist (which of all publications should know better!) uses a dollar scale to compute the 'increase in salary' parameter where again IIM A ranks a miserable 100th out of 100. Wouldn't use of purchasing power parity make far more sense?
With more global placements, exchange programs and even foreign languages being taught on campus (that is a criteria!), the IIM A rank should see a significant jump. But it will take time as the EIU methodology takes a weighted average of 2005 (50%), 2004 (30%) and 2003 (20%) data to provide a rounded picture of the school.
In the meanwhile, IIMs need to swallow their egos and do some lobbying with the Economist and other ranking agencies to correct these anomalies.And also look within to see where they can effect changes and thus improve their ranking (the alumni networking parameter for example).
These efforts should not be seen as 'beneath our dignity'. Rankings greatly affect the perception of how 'global' our institutions are. We must accept that and learn to play the game.
If that results in an IIM making it to the 'top 25', we will find both internal and external validation without having to physically go anywhere!
Making India the hub
The bottom line is, just because there is 'demand' from UAE, Sri Lanka, Mauritius or even Singapore to set up IIMs, does not mean we actually need to do so.... The mountain need not go to Mahomet.
In the interest of promoting diversity, IIMs can have a quota for international students other than NRIs (say 10%) and charge them higher rates (like state univs in the US do). But care must be taken to ensure they meet a minimum GMAT score and other stringent qualifying criteria.
The trick is to attract a big enough pool of applicants so you are able to pick up the cream. And for this a large scale communication and branding exercise would be required.
And yes, IIM B does need to worry about whether the Singapore foray will add to its aura or dilute it... If it does not have the resources to invest in a proper campus, it should take care to state upfront that it is planning a 'contact center' for its e-learning courses. Because the word 'campus' conjures quite a different image.
b
Let's also maintain a perspective on the earning potential of this exercise. According to TOI "IIM B's Singapore dream is expected to fetch the institute surplus revenues of Rs 2.5 crore over the coming years — funds that could be used to open more IIMs in India".
That kind of money is hardly sufficient to think of setting up new campuses but certainly can be employed to spruce up the existing ones to 'global' standards.
The red brick buildings at IIM A for example still look extremely photogenic. But take a closer look at the hostels and many of those 30 year old structures are in fact in bad shape. Especially when you compare the old campus with the shiny new one that's come on the other side of the connecting tunnel.
The point is that 'IIMs going global' is a case study in itself. Hope many ideas and approaches are used - simultaneously - so that the IIMs move forward and take their rightful place under the global sun!
If the IIM's wish to scale intake of students, they need additional teaching talent. And that is an extremely scarce resource...
Can IIM professors be ‘world class’ on Third World pay scales? Mukesh Ambani certainly does not think so. At a recent Board of Governors meeting he asked the institute to 'prepare the ground for compensating faculty adequately in line with other leading global business schools.'
Because, at current pay scales, an IIM professor with 20 years experience gets paid far less than what a 24 year old earns as starting salary on passing out of the institute.
As IIM Calcutta’s Prof. Anup Sinha bluntly puts it, “In India, you are either very passionate about teaching, or probably you didn't land up the job you wanted so you decide to hang around teaching in a b-school… teaching is not very financially rewarding.”
Of course, academics is not the most lucrative career option anywhere in the world. But the disparity between IIM payscales and corporate ones is so high that it definitely turns off those inclined towards the profession at entry stag. And erodes the self esteem of those who, despite it all, choose to go the academic way. Certainly not the best of HR policies!
Kellogg Dean Dipak Jain believes that the promotion system in Indian institutes need changes. " Every professor gets the same compensation as the other. Incentive system must change if these institutes have to be on global scene."
The other issue is that too much emphasis is laid on being a 'career academic'. Most IIM profs would not have significant corporate experience before doing their PhDs. In a practitioner led 'science' this is a disadvantage.
What's more, IIMs are simply not open to the idea of mid-career shifters. People who may have spent say 15-20 years in the industry and now wish to shift out of corporate life and into academics full time. Yes, there are 'visiting professors' with such backgrounds but to join full time a PhD is a minimum qualifying criteria.
And there is definitely a 'we need to protect our turf' mindset because of which this is unlikely to change. Although as J. Philip, Director XIME points out: In the first wave of Directors and senior Professors at IIMs, one would notice a good number of non-Ph.Ds, starting with K.T. Chandy and Hiten Bhaya of IIM-C, Ravi Mathai of IIM-A, N.S. Ramaswamy of IIM-B, Professors Nitish De and Iswar Dayal of IIM-C, and many others...."
Attracting international students
This brings me to the last and crucial ingredient required for a top quality institute: top quality students.
The 'global brand name' the IIMs have today rests to a large extent on the laurels of its graduates. In this, the selection and filtration process has played a crucial role. There are those who argue that inputs at the campus 'hardly matter' given the fact that this is the creme de la creme of the student population.
But I for one am not so cynical. The 'exposure' combined with 'opportunities' is what produces the X factor.
One of the only drawbacks of studying in an IIM is the lack of diversity in the student population.
A huge number of IITians and engineers, sprinkling of C A s and BComs and a tiny number of ‘others’. Any top 20 B school in the US would, in contrast, attract a far more heterogeneous and multicultural population.
Well, student exchange programs at IIMs have led to a significant ‘foreign student’ presence on campus in recent years. But would any of these students consider joining for the entire 2 year program? Probably not. Unless IIMs move up significantly in Global Business School rankings. And there - is another BIG anomaly.
Foreign rankings - far from perfect.
As detractors gleefully point out from time to time, IIMs feature 'nowhere' in the world B school rankings. For example, IIM Ahmedabad was the only Indian B school to feature in the top 100 of the Economist Intelligence Unit rankings.
Shameful, you say? Well dig a little deeper and here's what you find. If B school rankings conducted by Indian magazines are flawed - this is no better!
The Economist arrives at its rankings by studying 4 broad parameters:
1) open new career opportunities and/or career advancement (35%)
2) personal development and educational experience (35%)
3) to increase salary (20%)
4) potential to network (10%).
Each parameter has sub-parameters:
eg Open new career opportunities (33% overall weightage) is comprised of:
Diversity of recruiters (25%)
Number in jobs three months after graduation (25%)
Jobs found through the careers service (25%)
Student assessment (25%)
If you compare the ranking of IIM A (ranked 69) with Stanford (ranked 4), IMD Lausanne (ranked 5) and surprise! IESE Business School - University of Navarra, Barcelona (ranked 1) there are some shockers.
IIM A scores the HIGHEST possible rank 1 out of 100 on some criteria ('opens new career opportunities') and the LOWEST possible rank 100 out of 100 on other criteria (student quality and diversity).
As only 1% of IIM students are 'international' a low rank in 'diversity' is understandable. But quality? The applicant to places ratio at 532: 1 is the highest among all colleges! However, one component of student quality is 'average GMAT score' - which is not applicable to IIMs.
This, if guessed, means we score a zero in an area which counts for 12.5% of the "Personal Development and Educational Experience" parameter which has an overall weightage of 35 out of 100. Which is like leaving one 4 mark question in a paper of 100 marks for no fault of your own...
Then the Economist (which of all publications should know better!) uses a dollar scale to compute the 'increase in salary' parameter where again IIM A ranks a miserable 100th out of 100. Wouldn't use of purchasing power parity make far more sense?
With more global placements, exchange programs and even foreign languages being taught on campus (that is a criteria!), the IIM A rank should see a significant jump. But it will take time as the EIU methodology takes a weighted average of 2005 (50%), 2004 (30%) and 2003 (20%) data to provide a rounded picture of the school.
In the meanwhile, IIMs need to swallow their egos and do some lobbying with the Economist and other ranking agencies to correct these anomalies.And also look within to see where they can effect changes and thus improve their ranking (the alumni networking parameter for example).
These efforts should not be seen as 'beneath our dignity'. Rankings greatly affect the perception of how 'global' our institutions are. We must accept that and learn to play the game.
If that results in an IIM making it to the 'top 25', we will find both internal and external validation without having to physically go anywhere!
Making India the hub
The bottom line is, just because there is 'demand' from UAE, Sri Lanka, Mauritius or even Singapore to set up IIMs, does not mean we actually need to do so.... The mountain need not go to Mahomet.
In the interest of promoting diversity, IIMs can have a quota for international students other than NRIs (say 10%) and charge them higher rates (like state univs in the US do). But care must be taken to ensure they meet a minimum GMAT score and other stringent qualifying criteria.
The trick is to attract a big enough pool of applicants so you are able to pick up the cream. And for this a large scale communication and branding exercise would be required.
And yes, IIM B does need to worry about whether the Singapore foray will add to its aura or dilute it... If it does not have the resources to invest in a proper campus, it should take care to state upfront that it is planning a 'contact center' for its e-learning courses. Because the word 'campus' conjures quite a different image.
b
Let's also maintain a perspective on the earning potential of this exercise. According to TOI "IIM B's Singapore dream is expected to fetch the institute surplus revenues of Rs 2.5 crore over the coming years — funds that could be used to open more IIMs in India".
That kind of money is hardly sufficient to think of setting up new campuses but certainly can be employed to spruce up the existing ones to 'global' standards.
The red brick buildings at IIM A for example still look extremely photogenic. But take a closer look at the hostels and many of those 30 year old structures are in fact in bad shape. Especially when you compare the old campus with the shiny new one that's come on the other side of the connecting tunnel.
The point is that 'IIMs going global' is a case study in itself. Hope many ideas and approaches are used - simultaneously - so that the IIMs move forward and take their rightful place under the global sun!
Should the IIMs go ‘global’? - 1
IIM B Global Plans get Green Signal
Words mean different things to different people. Take the term 'global'. If you were on an IIM campus and a student commented the lecture he just attended was 'global', it would hardly be a compliment to the professor.
Global, in IIM lingo, is shorthand for general gas. And that is what appears to be dominating the current debate on whether IIMs should – ironically- go ‘global’. There is the IIMs-owe-it-to-India camp vs the India-owes-it-to-IIMs camp. But, leaving ideology aside, does globalising make sense?
Yes and no. IIMs must become players on the global stage. Whether they need to physically step out of India to do that is the question that needs to be asked.
‘Global’ campuses
Let’s start with the IIM Bangalore proposal to ‘set up shop’ in Singapore which is how this debate sparked off in the first place.
First of all, is it viable for the IIMs to set up full-fledged physical campuses abroad? I don't think so. When INSEAD entered Singapore it had committed to spend $35.5 million (60 million Singapore dollars) to set up a campus which would rival its 2.9 hectare campus in Fontainebleau. The campus was to be built in 4 phases - and will be fully completed only by 2016.
To be seen as 'world class' an IIM B satellite campus would have to do match INSEAD. Was that what they had planned? Not at all. The foray abroad is meant to be a revenue earning opportunity, not a drain on the resources of the mother brand. Way back in July 2005 www.bridgesingapore.com reported:
Now IIM-B - the business school in India's Silicon Valley of Bangalore - hopes to export its strength in business strategy and finance by offering an online EMBA programme, targeted, at its Singapore campus.
The initiative will be hosted at Bhavan's Indian International School, with the institute sharing its lecture halls, seminar and conference rooms, library and computer centre.
"The EMBA course modules would be taught online, with nearly all the faculty members, in terms of teaching staff, working out of our Indian campus," said Prakash Apte, director of IIM-Bangalore. "But we're also looking at hiring locally-based faculty members depending on demand," he added.
Such a strategy certainly makes sense but more from a ‘business’ point of view than as an institution. Dr Apte admitted that, “Although we're reaching out to the entire region, a large proportion of the students are likely to come from the Indians living and working around the region.”
The added attraction: the IIMB course is expected to cost less than those offered other foreign players in Singapore.
And that, I think is the problem. As long as IIMs continue to be seen as a value-for-money MBA education mainly by Indians – whether based in the country or overseas – IIMs will never be truly ‘global’ players.
Thought leadership
"If you look at the global environment now, India is fast becoming an economic powerhouse. There is a great interest in the knowledge of the Indian economy, in Indian companies and the peculiarities of the Indian market. And this is what we can provide better than Chicago GSB or INSEAD. Fundamentally, this is where our strong value-proposition lies."
That statement by Dr Prakash Apte summed up the opportunity for the IIMs. Suddenly the spotlight is on India. We are being seen as the Next Big Market for everything from automobiles to apartment complexes. Multinationals are dying to understand what makes India ticks. Can IIMs be the ones to enlighten them?
Take outsourcing, for example. Since India is at the forefront of this business revolution, logically, an IIM professor should have seized the opportunity to become an internationally renowned expert on the subject. It hasn’t happened – for two reasons.
Much of the research at IIMs is lacking in contemporary relevance. Some of it is also lacking in academic rigour.
Secondly, even the research output which is worthy of recognition rarely creates the desired impact. That’s because while they may teach the subject, IIM professors are loath to ‘market’ themselves or their work.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. As one IIM professor put it, "If I were to propound a management theory based on karmayoga, it would have religious connotations. If the same idea of being ‘committed to the effort, not the accomplishment’ was propounded by a professor from Harvard it might well be seen as pathbreaking."
So yes, IIMs lack in source credibility as ‘thinktanks’– hence their research is not taken seriously. But it would take just 2-3 outstanding individuals to break this perception. Of course, they would necessarily have to be not just brilliant academics but persuasive communicators and networkers as well.
Easy to advise, of course...
There are other important issues... Such as attracting quality faculty and a diverse student body. More on those and other challenges, in my next post.
Words mean different things to different people. Take the term 'global'. If you were on an IIM campus and a student commented the lecture he just attended was 'global', it would hardly be a compliment to the professor.
Global, in IIM lingo, is shorthand for general gas. And that is what appears to be dominating the current debate on whether IIMs should – ironically- go ‘global’. There is the IIMs-owe-it-to-India camp vs the India-owes-it-to-IIMs camp. But, leaving ideology aside, does globalising make sense?
Yes and no. IIMs must become players on the global stage. Whether they need to physically step out of India to do that is the question that needs to be asked.
‘Global’ campuses
Let’s start with the IIM Bangalore proposal to ‘set up shop’ in Singapore which is how this debate sparked off in the first place.
First of all, is it viable for the IIMs to set up full-fledged physical campuses abroad? I don't think so. When INSEAD entered Singapore it had committed to spend $35.5 million (60 million Singapore dollars) to set up a campus which would rival its 2.9 hectare campus in Fontainebleau. The campus was to be built in 4 phases - and will be fully completed only by 2016.
To be seen as 'world class' an IIM B satellite campus would have to do match INSEAD. Was that what they had planned? Not at all. The foray abroad is meant to be a revenue earning opportunity, not a drain on the resources of the mother brand. Way back in July 2005 www.bridgesingapore.com reported:
Now IIM-B - the business school in India's Silicon Valley of Bangalore - hopes to export its strength in business strategy and finance by offering an online EMBA programme, targeted, at its Singapore campus.
The initiative will be hosted at Bhavan's Indian International School, with the institute sharing its lecture halls, seminar and conference rooms, library and computer centre.
"The EMBA course modules would be taught online, with nearly all the faculty members, in terms of teaching staff, working out of our Indian campus," said Prakash Apte, director of IIM-Bangalore. "But we're also looking at hiring locally-based faculty members depending on demand," he added.
Such a strategy certainly makes sense but more from a ‘business’ point of view than as an institution. Dr Apte admitted that, “Although we're reaching out to the entire region, a large proportion of the students are likely to come from the Indians living and working around the region.”
The added attraction: the IIMB course is expected to cost less than those offered other foreign players in Singapore.
And that, I think is the problem. As long as IIMs continue to be seen as a value-for-money MBA education mainly by Indians – whether based in the country or overseas – IIMs will never be truly ‘global’ players.
Thought leadership
"If you look at the global environment now, India is fast becoming an economic powerhouse. There is a great interest in the knowledge of the Indian economy, in Indian companies and the peculiarities of the Indian market. And this is what we can provide better than Chicago GSB or INSEAD. Fundamentally, this is where our strong value-proposition lies."
That statement by Dr Prakash Apte summed up the opportunity for the IIMs. Suddenly the spotlight is on India. We are being seen as the Next Big Market for everything from automobiles to apartment complexes. Multinationals are dying to understand what makes India ticks. Can IIMs be the ones to enlighten them?
Take outsourcing, for example. Since India is at the forefront of this business revolution, logically, an IIM professor should have seized the opportunity to become an internationally renowned expert on the subject. It hasn’t happened – for two reasons.
Much of the research at IIMs is lacking in contemporary relevance. Some of it is also lacking in academic rigour.
Secondly, even the research output which is worthy of recognition rarely creates the desired impact. That’s because while they may teach the subject, IIM professors are loath to ‘market’ themselves or their work.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. As one IIM professor put it, "If I were to propound a management theory based on karmayoga, it would have religious connotations. If the same idea of being ‘committed to the effort, not the accomplishment’ was propounded by a professor from Harvard it might well be seen as pathbreaking."
So yes, IIMs lack in source credibility as ‘thinktanks’– hence their research is not taken seriously. But it would take just 2-3 outstanding individuals to break this perception. Of course, they would necessarily have to be not just brilliant academics but persuasive communicators and networkers as well.
Easy to advise, of course...
There are other important issues... Such as attracting quality faculty and a diverse student body. More on those and other challenges, in my next post.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Kaun nahin banega crorepati
Don't mourn the loss of your favourite game show, said the channel. Don't mourn the loss of hopes and dreams. Don't blame your bad luck either - you never had a fair chance of making it to the "Hot Seat" anyways.
Dial mein kuch kaala?
The India TV story, backed up with impressive amount of documentation, painted a pretty bleak picture of the selection process for India's most popular game show.
The gist of the expose: KBC gets 25 lakh calls per episode, so the odds of making it to final 10 twice are next to zero. Yet, it happened five times. And though the rules bar BSNL and MTNL employees, at least nine took part..
To elaborate: 25 lakh (2.5 million) viewers vied for a place on every episode of KBC2. To qualify required a small amount of grey matter and large doses of luck.
Step 1: Call in or sms (via MTNL, BSNL or Airtel) and answer one simple question. Charges - Rs 2.40 on BSNL/ MTNL or Rs 6 on the Airtel network.
Step 2: Of those who answer correctly the computer 'randomly' selects 500 callers who are then asked to reply to 2 more questions.
Step 3 : This was followed by round 3 where a lucky 100 people must answer 3 more questions.
Step 4: Of those who clear this hurdle, the computer generates a list of 10 'final' participants who get a chance to compete for the Hot Seat.
So yes, anyone making it to the 'final 10' twice defies all laws of probability.. And yet, India TV had pictorial evidence to prove it.
The BSNL tangle
And the second time on Sept 12, 2005 in episode 15. This time he won Rs 20,000.
On the face of it, there had been a huge mess up. Rule no 1 of the 31 listed states:
Competition.
Lines of this kind drafted by the 'legal department' are a standard part of all competitions. Wonder whether the auditor was given a specfic LIST of companies whose employees were persona non grata.
As per official statistics, 7.5 crores of the 10 crore calls received were through BSNL.
BSNL happens to have more than 3.5 lakh employees... Wonder whether they get free calls from home and office. If so, they probably did just that in their 'spare time' (which is never lacking in a PSU!).
That would be simple 'misuse' of faclities. More worrying was possible manipulation of the system. After all offficals such as Shri R L Dubey, Director (Planning), BSNL stated on record that calls made from PCOs, office board lines and any other telephone lines (other than BSNL/ MTNL) would not be considered valid entries.
For both image and profit reasons, BSNL needed to provide some answers. In July 2005 BSNL had already raked in over Rs 4 crore or 32 lakh per day by routing KBC2's tele-voting calls from across the country.
Any breach of trust would surely affect future revenues of this nature!
More questions
And what was Star TV doing? Whatever the angle at BSNL, at the end of the day the organisers were to blame for actually allowing BSNL employees to appear on KBC. You can't shrug off 9 such instances as an 'oversight'.
"Shaayad Star TV ko yeh jaankaari maloom nahin thi... ," suggested India TV's Rajat Sharma. Then he adds, "Magar unki website par har participant ke details maujood hain. Woh kahaan ka rehne waala hai... kahaan kaam karta hai etc etc"
As regards the same person appearing twice on air, Rule no 17 states: Contestants could make it only once to the Fastest Finger First round for any Show in a Schedule.
So the channel defended itself by saying that those who made it to the final 10 twice were not picked in the *same* shooting schedule. It appeared fishy...
Especially because to ensure 'fair representation' the rules further stipulated a quota for women (2 out of 10 in every episode at least). There was a regional quota as well to ensure participants were drawn from throughout the country.
Under those circumstances the chances of making it twice in the final 10 appeared all the more remote!
Auditor, where art thou?
The FAQ section on the KBC 2 website contains the following query:
There are touts and so called influential people who claim they can get me an entry directly into the show. How true is this?
Answer: There is only one way to get on to KBC 2 - by qualifying through the phone lines, as described in the rules. There is no question of bypassing this process, and contacts have no role to play at all in gaining entry into the contest. It is a fair process, closely monitored by independent auditors.
Well, these independent auditors were the venerable KPMG . What exactly was their job defintion? Who set up the systems to execute the selection process? Who oversaw its functioning??
Since KBC was a franchise of 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' it should have been following the same selection process. Has the Mother Brand faced any such issues??
It is still unclear who was ultimately responsible for the selection of contestants. Was it Star TV or producers Synergy Communications (owned by Siddhartha Basu)? Or was the task outsourced to a third party??
As Amitabhji would have said sahi option ko 'lock kiya jaaye'...
Why it mattered
You might say, it was just a gameshow - why get so worked up? The truth was it was far more than that. Combine the lure of winning one crore with that of interacting with India's biggest Bollywood actor and you have 'the Dream of a Lifetime'.
At one level it was luck - but once you made it to the Hot Seat, it was all about your soojh boojh. Your General knowledge, of course. But also your ability to handle pressure, your presence of mind.
Unlike the other game shows, on KBC2 anyone who won a few lakhs really 'earned' it. KBC2 was perceived to be a merit based game show where luck played only a facilitating role - not a decisive one.
Coupled with the grace and gravity of its host Amitabh Bachchan, KBC2 was synomymous with the 'high standards' that every Indian wished to see in public life.
If those standards were in fact diluted, it felt like a betrayal of faith. A loss of innocence. A lack of decency.
Mild aftershock... so far
Although the rotten eggs may have been few in number (and none of them won significant amounts on the show), the fact that they did make it on air is not just egg but fully cooked omlette on Star TV's face. Naturally, India TV had been trying to gain as much mileage as possible.
This included its trademark rabble rousing anchoring. "Dekhiye kis tarah Star TV ne hazaaron laakhon darshakon ke jazbaaton ke saath khilwaad kiya. Chaliye aapko Patna le chalte hain... "
In Patna a 'member of the public' appeared to be reading a speech from a paper (written down for him by whom?) expressing his shock and anger. Junta accosted on the roads of Mumbai were a little more natural and convincing. The channel claims messages from 'lakhs' of viewers were pouring in...
But the story has not had a major impact... Being an India TV expose, no rival TV channel covered it.
Midday had featured the story on page 1 but again, most folks missed it, as Mid-day was more of an office/ commuting paper than home delivery.
It remained to be seen whether media took up the story or keep mum. As the show was now officially 'over' in any case, they chose not to antagonise Star TV.
Every dog has his day
India TV is one those those channels most of us never tune into, just taking in nano-second darshan of it as we surf by. I for one made several efforts to consign it to the nether regions of my 100 channel television. But the Cable Guy seemed to believe every underdog deserves a chance and keeps fiddling with the order.
He may be right.
Every channel can come up with something to hold the viewer's attention. And every viewer can come up with something to draw the channel's attention.
This story was first brought to India TV's notice by a KBC crazed viewer based in Udaipur who had notes and details of every episode ever telecasted. From which contestant spent how many minutes on air to what suit Amitabh Bachchan was wearing on a particular day.
KBC mein chahe number na aaye, citizen reporter ki haisiyat mein ab aapka bhi number as sakta hai. Some consolation huh!
Uhm..can't say that i was too shocked to find such a revelation but you do expect a certain level of integrity and transparency when a show of such magnitude is being screened. Plus it had the added bonus of being associated with Big B who for some reason instills a false sense of security (in relation to credibilty) in us!
Another thing, did anyone else feel that shows with celebs are rigged...rigged as in ..somewhat pre-planned..I don't know about the new ones but the old ones where I saw SRK etc, was just too obvious. They made it to 1crore or a sum just below that...and they conveniently donated it all to charity!
The story was certainly mind-blowing and shocking. Even after the 4 steps mentioned, lakhs of people stood no chance of making there, when such fishy things were happening.the photographs are a indication that people were being fooled.
Well it was a very sad ending to a game show that inspired millions of Indians. I myself was a big fan of KBC but alas...now the crediblity of all other Game shows on idiot box is also in question.
But a big applause to Big B who quit the show when he realized what was going on.
Honestly, this might be true, but did it really matter. Sure, the BSNL and MTNL guys can rig the phone-ins, and they might have did that, Star should have acknowledged the problem and fixed it. Or maybe they got a better 'revenue sharing' model in exchange for letting random people in on the show. Too many 'kaun'spiracy theories out there.
Do I think most game shows are fixed? Yes.
Does that fact let me not sleep at night? Nope.
And Bluffmaster, I think this won't do jack to the image of the Big B. You see, for me, a person determined to corrupt the sense of democracy in India clinging to power is more impoartant than some game show.
This is a fraud on a monumental scale. Previously guys like Siddharta Basu were looked upon as incorruptible but even idols have feets of clay !!
How can these fellows stay silent (if they were unaware). Couldn't Siddhartha easily spot a repeater contestant. Couldn't he have vetted the contestant properly.
This is akin to the major QUIZ SCANDAL which rocked America in the 1950's.
Probably higher standards wouldn't appeal to the Indian populace. Leave aside degrees, what would be the GK level of an average indian? Its all hiphop stuff, publicity, fame, and marketing that played the game. Don't know how can 'quality control' be asked for in such a show with such audience!
Give us four options or four hundred, we'd still vote for a clean, untainted KBC!
The future of cinema ?
So, will digital cinema spell the end of multiplexes? Technology can make many things cheaper.
Many years ago, during the days before multiplexes, a blockbuster meant that theatres would arbitrarily hike their rates. If they did not do that, they would station their own men to sell tickets in "black". Prices would be artificially jacked up. The movie going public would pay more money, the theatre owner or manager and the blackmarketeer (in cahoots with the theatre) took a cut while the government got the usual tax.
With the arrival of multiplexes and online booking the black business has gone down, atleast in the urban areas, but the tickets have become expensive on the whole (which is ok, because it is worth the money). In the earlier days AC meant airconditioning in the beginning of the movie and then miserly owners would switch off the AC. Seating was pathetic and every seat had more bed bugs than the population of India. Sound systems usually meant loud sound and nothing else. All in all, it was a rip off at all theaters except the best.
Coming back to digital cinema the larger multiplexes charge upto 300 for tickets especially on weekends and new releases. For a first day show, it is a steal.
Many years ago, during the days before multiplexes, a blockbuster meant that theatres would arbitrarily hike their rates. If they did not do that, they would station their own men to sell tickets in "black". Prices would be artificially jacked up. The movie going public would pay more money, the theatre owner or manager and the blackmarketeer (in cahoots with the theatre) took a cut while the government got the usual tax.
With the arrival of multiplexes and online booking the black business has gone down, atleast in the urban areas, but the tickets have become expensive on the whole (which is ok, because it is worth the money). In the earlier days AC meant airconditioning in the beginning of the movie and then miserly owners would switch off the AC. Seating was pathetic and every seat had more bed bugs than the population of India. Sound systems usually meant loud sound and nothing else. All in all, it was a rip off at all theaters except the best.
Coming back to digital cinema the larger multiplexes charge upto 300 for tickets especially on weekends and new releases. For a first day show, it is a steal.
5 stars to Rang de Basanti !
And that is exactly why everyone was worried. Would Rang De Basanti really live up to the expectations?
The answer was yes!!! This film not only lived up - it far EXCEEDED one's imagination. A good film entertains you while you're in the theatre. A great film stays with you long after you've left it.
Rang de Basanti, in my opinion, is one of those greats. If Dil Chahta Hai redefined 'youth' films, Rang de Basanti took the theme to the next level.
I will explain why, but first, a quick plot summary :
Inspired by a diary written by her grandfather, foreign kudi comes to India to make a documentary on India’s revolutionary freedom fighters – Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and others who laid down their life for the country. She casts five young men for these roles – none of whom can identify with the idea of making any such sacrifices.
‘Is desh mein hai kya? Population?? Corruption???” says one. “Mujhe to jaise hi degree mili I’m outta here”. Meanwhile they’re hanging loose at the masti ki ‘paathshala’.
But, somewhere along the way the reluctant actors find themselves moved by the passion of the long-dead revolutionaries. And inspired to actually stand up and take on the System.
And from the official synopsis:
In the film both the 1930s British India and the India today run parallel and intersect with each other at crucial points. As the film reaches its resolution the line between past and present blurs, as they become one in spirit..
That makes no sense now but when you see the film it does! There.
Why Rang de rocked
Rang de Basanti’s greatness lied in the fact that achieved a fine balance. Dil Chahta Hai was a light film, this one had a message. Yet it managed to be as entertaining – perhaps even more than DCH.
The easy camaraderie and bonding between the friends lights up the screen. The language is Phinglish (Punjabbi and Hindi vich occasional English) – just the kind Dilli ke bande actually use (correct me if I’m wrong here!).
The film had all the usual youth ‘types’ – bade baap ka beta. good-for-nothing with heart-of-gold, nationally integrated cast of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-and-Isaai. And yet there were no stereotypes.
In fact, the film created new definitions of old ideas. What does it mean to be ‘patriotic’? Rang de attempted to answer the old question in a new way. It was not about Sunny paaji single handedly immobilising the Pakistani army and half its airforce by breaking the sound barrier as he booms “JAI HIND”.
Rang de Basanti said patriotism is about standing up and doing something. Not just complaining that everything in this country is useless but to see that each one of us is responsible for the current state of affairs. And has the power to start effecting a change.
Ah, but here is where the really controversial bit comes in. Is the path chosen by these young men the right path? Yeh kai dinon tak charcha ka vishay raha. Coz these weren't the do-gooder variety of changemakers a la MohanBharga va in Swades.
Again I would say the film maker did manage to achieve a balance – while the characters embraced questionable actions and ideas, the viewer was left with some alternatives which were more acceptable: like joining the police, IAS or politics.
This was how Rakesh Mehra put it to rediff.com: There is a matter of making a choice and accepting the responsibility of making it - that is the turning point in the film. The big moment is the decision for them to accept that choice, and take on the consequences of their actions, not to be escapists.
The ‘taking consequences for your actions’ bit was the crucial one. That’s what took the film beyond the vigilante justice formula we’ve seen a million times before!
The Second Coming
Director Rakesh Mehra’s first film ‘Aks’ was described as “a superior product, technically speaking, but faltered in that one vital department -- story-telling”.
Well, Mehra seemed to have taken the feedback very seriously because this time the story and screenplay was numero uno, and on that strong foundation rested the other stuff: stunning visuals, music, technical wizardry.
The important thing about the story was that revolved around a basic clash in values –at many different levels. Youth of 1930's vs Youth of Today was the dominant theme. But there are many other sub-conflicts touched upon.
For example, the pressure from Aslam’s family to have friends from his ‘own community’ – the first time I think the ‘ghetto’ issue had been brought up on the Bollywood screen. Then there’s Laxman Pandey, a saffron party worker who’s anti-all-things-Westernism-and-Muslims. His attitude changes – in more ways than one – over the course of the film.
The casting – what can I say? All the characters – major and minor - don’t just play their parts. They live them. I particularly liked Soha Ali Khan, Kunal Kapoor, Atul Kulkarni, Alice Patten and Kiron Kher.
Aamir was great as usual. He looked a little old in some scenes but then he was supposed to be one of those dadas who’s still in college although he ‘passed out’ 5 years ago. And the film just would not have worked its magic on us without him.
Chhoti Baatein
I also liked the small touches. For example, the scene where Sue first steps out of Delhi airport is so true to life!
Thankfully the scriptwriters decided to give the phoren kudi Hindi speaking classes before coming to India - so we don’t have to suffer sub-titles or awkward English dialogue. And it made for some good laughs as well.
All the threads of the story tied in together – which was rare in Bollywood. Like the RJ who made a fleeting appearance in the first 20 minutes. Since it was a known face (veejay Cyrus Sahukar) you wonder usne do line ka part kyun accept kiya. Well, he suddenly popped up as a ‘crucial’ part in the climax.
It was also nice to see an ad filmmaker-turned-director NOT accepting ads in the film itself. So while there was a marketing tie up with Coke, there are no Coke bottles at all in the film. NDTV gets mega-mileage throughout – but it's not a plug. In fact, it adds authenticity to parts of the story.
It was also nice to see the Gang hanging out at places other than standard issue coffee shops, malls and multiplexes.
They preferred omlets and chai in a sardarji da dhaba or a purana qila next to an airfield. Of course, there was one important scene in a trendy lounge bar too. This reflected more accurately the mix n match hangout culture (street food bhi khayenge, 5 star mein bhi) of actual youth – again, rarely seen on screen!
The sepia-toned depiction of the revolutionaries was also extremely well done. And illuminating. I never knew, for example, that Bhagat Singh and his comrades went on a hunger strike for 114 days because they demanded to be treated not as common criminals but ‘political prisoners’ entitled to paper, pen and a daily newspaper. Of course, now the standards have changed to more luxuries, leave alone reading and writing.
And the way Rang De managed to cut back and forth between past and present –not just as long flashbacks but from moment to moment without trivializing either era was amazing. I’m sure it was very hard to pull off - in the movie it appeared effortless.
A couple of very minor quibbles:
- India Habitat Centre appeared to have been passed off as Delhi University.
- Saffron party workers attacking peaceful demonstrators at India Gate? In the age of 24 hour television, sending a martyr’s mother into a coma would be an absolute PR disaster !
- Sue is shooting an entire historical documentary with a single camera and no back up unit? Chalo maaf kiya – creative license!
There was a lot more I would have liked to write about the film but.........!
I would give Rang De Basanti a 5 star rating for its thought, its passion, its careful crafting and overall entertainment value.
The Inner Voice - II
In my last post I mentioned about an unusual career-related decision :
Five IITians entering politics.
While the decision was guided by an 'inner voice', clearly what the voice is saying are different things.
What the budding politicians hear is: "Serve your country. Give back to your countrymen". They have no natural 'aptitude' or talent for this. In that sense their decision is far riskier and idealistic. And open to ridicule as well.
Just being IITians does not automatically ensure these young men will make better or more honest politicians. But it does not mean they need to be condemned or written off before they start.
There is a case to be made for youth and idealism. Spending 10 years working in Bell Labs and then entering politics would not make these young men any the wiser or more effective.
We get what we deserve
Indian politics is badly in need of fresh blood. Because the current crop is teeming with rotten apples.
As the Association for Democratic Reform observed during the Bihar elections: Affidavits filed with the Election Commission one in three candidates fielded by major political parties had charge sheets pending against them.
So like I said, the road ahead for Paritrana is very very difficult but let's give them some time and room to make a few mistakes.
Otherwise, we have no business sighing about dynastic rule or criminalisation of politics.
What the party stands for
Jahaan tak rahi ideology ki baat, here's what their website (which appears to have been fixed) has to say:
Sabhi sukhi hon (All should be happy)
Sukh ka mool samriddhi hai (The root of happiness is prosperity)
Samriddhi ka mool rajya hai (The root of prosperity is the governance)
Rajya ka mool dand hai (The root of good governance lies in the system of reward and punishment)
Their website further explains: In less organized society the punishing side of Dand predominates. In more organized society the reward side of Dand predominates. In any case it is Dand that rules. The role of the System, the Government, the State, or that of a King is to "regulate" Dand, not to hold it. And when Dand is not properly regulated it destroys the State and its people. That's what has happened in past and is happening in the present society.
Now an economist may argue this is simplistic but so far I see no trace of rabid Hindu nationalism - the variety that excludes other communities.
Yes, they've used a quote from the Rig Veda on their website. Why should that 'offend' anyone? It is a part of our common heritage - whatever faith we may belong to today.
The tragedy is that unlike the Greek, Roman or Egyptian civilisations ours did not die out... So any reference to collective wisdom of the past becomes 'anti-secular', anti-the-idea-of-a-modern-India.
There, writing that one line I know will invite comments about me being a fundamentalist. Which is as offensive as people saying that all Muslims who take pride in aspects of their culture or religion are supporters of Taliban or Bin Laden or whatever.
How cynical do you have to be to assume (a) they may not have had a great job in the first place (b) they are probably fundamentalists (c) it's unlikely they are going to be able to do much!! Whatever jobs these guys had, I feel pretty sure it was better than the insecurity of politics. Even seasoned politicians routinely lose so of course novices are going to have a hard time. As for religion : I am an agnostic, don't care much for any religion. But I have no problem quoting the Geeta or the Vedas or the Sermon on the Mount, so I seriously doubt a quotation from the Rig Veda makes u a fundie.
Despite the inherent insecurity and natural fear that the entrenched & corrupt politicians will not let them affect change they have decided to follow thier inner voice and make an attempt to do soemthing good. Instead of being applauded and lauded they seem to be generating cynicism and suspicion.
I for one, salute them and hope they can truly be catalysts for change in our moribund political system. Remember we get the politicians (I would not deign to call our current politicians leaders) we deserve.
I wonder if the leadership makes any difference. Policy framing is done by bureaucrats anyways. In fact it might be detrimental to have thorough intellectuals running the country. a lopsided idealistic view, a tendency that cultured class carries, would be an unnecessary baggage. and by the way who would vote for them?? Who would be able to relate to aerospace engineering when immediate concern is roti, kapdaa aur makaan.
Any IITian with or without experience would be better than the current lot of criminal and illiterate politicians. At least they are educated. Not just educated but quite well educated.
I believe if there is one metric which should decide who would be a better person managing the country, it would be education. For that matter not just managing the country but for doing anything responsible.
As on politics, don't you think people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Remember people like Manmohan Singh (no less a scholar than an IITian) losing from South Delhi once, supposed to be inhabited by 'educated kind'. We all want clean politics, but when it comes to voting, no one is ready to eschew his own caste/religion interests in favor of a candidate who might otherwise be the 'cleanest'.
Politics in India is a gutter and we hope that these guys will be able to cleanse it to some extent. Whether they suceed or not is a different issue-but the very fact that they have thought and implemented something is applaudable thousands of praise.
There is a saying that "Youth will have its swing" or that most inventions were attempted by youth who at that time did not know that they were inventions. One should still laud the initiative though it is different from Michael Dell of Bill Gates opting out of universities to start businesses.
At stated in the end, the whole issue is one of accountability. It is strange that for management goals we are accountable to our bosses on a daily or weekly basis but people in public life have no such accountability once they are elected.
Rajiv Gandhi with 400 MP's in parliament had stated that only 15 percent of the actual funds reached the poor. So the issue is not what the party stands for but how they are going to implement. Indira Gandhi coined the slogan "Garibi hatao" but it was Narasimha Rao/ Manmohan Singh who actually did it with liberalization. Even Dhirubhai Ambani was great because of implementation.
Anybody can launch a party with idealistic slogans which stalwarts from the film industry also did during emergency with the nationalist party. It turned out to be schoolboy enthusiasm.
Even if just to save our civilisation's past, what we need is a party that makes no bones about being influenced by our history but refuses to blindly follow regional/religious divisions...... If Gandhiji could quote the vedas and follow the Bhagvad Gita yet be act as a messiah for both religions, why can't we?
If these guys can draw crowd and make them listen, and remain focused on goals germane to their conviction, its good. But I fear the convinced-altruism of the IIT/IIM sort might make them think of this as some kind of non-profit start up. Politicians are made in Universities. IIT/IIMs, so far have been notable exceptions.
Notwithstanding my eternal, perpetual cynicism, my Best Wishes are with them.
Go, make a difference!
Getting back to the original topic - the IITians joining politics. My lengthy defence of a group of people I do not know personally is based merely on a matter of principle. Everybody deserves a chance.
Of course, politicians must be accountable, whether they are cowherds or IITians. Magar abhi to innings shuru hi hui hai... what follows may be a series of ducks or some brilliant centuries.
Let's wait and watch.
Five IITians entering politics.
While the decision was guided by an 'inner voice', clearly what the voice is saying are different things.
What the budding politicians hear is: "Serve your country. Give back to your countrymen". They have no natural 'aptitude' or talent for this. In that sense their decision is far riskier and idealistic. And open to ridicule as well.
Just being IITians does not automatically ensure these young men will make better or more honest politicians. But it does not mean they need to be condemned or written off before they start.
There is a case to be made for youth and idealism. Spending 10 years working in Bell Labs and then entering politics would not make these young men any the wiser or more effective.
We get what we deserve
Indian politics is badly in need of fresh blood. Because the current crop is teeming with rotten apples.
As the Association for Democratic Reform observed during the Bihar elections: Affidavits filed with the Election Commission one in three candidates fielded by major political parties had charge sheets pending against them.
So like I said, the road ahead for Paritrana is very very difficult but let's give them some time and room to make a few mistakes.
Otherwise, we have no business sighing about dynastic rule or criminalisation of politics.
What the party stands for
Jahaan tak rahi ideology ki baat, here's what their website (which appears to have been fixed) has to say:
Sabhi sukhi hon (All should be happy)
Sukh ka mool samriddhi hai (The root of happiness is prosperity)
Samriddhi ka mool rajya hai (The root of prosperity is the governance)
Rajya ka mool dand hai (The root of good governance lies in the system of reward and punishment)
Their website further explains: In less organized society the punishing side of Dand predominates. In more organized society the reward side of Dand predominates. In any case it is Dand that rules. The role of the System, the Government, the State, or that of a King is to "regulate" Dand, not to hold it. And when Dand is not properly regulated it destroys the State and its people. That's what has happened in past and is happening in the present society.
Now an economist may argue this is simplistic but so far I see no trace of rabid Hindu nationalism - the variety that excludes other communities.
Yes, they've used a quote from the Rig Veda on their website. Why should that 'offend' anyone? It is a part of our common heritage - whatever faith we may belong to today.
The tragedy is that unlike the Greek, Roman or Egyptian civilisations ours did not die out... So any reference to collective wisdom of the past becomes 'anti-secular', anti-the-idea-of-a-modern-India.
There, writing that one line I know will invite comments about me being a fundamentalist. Which is as offensive as people saying that all Muslims who take pride in aspects of their culture or religion are supporters of Taliban or Bin Laden or whatever.
How cynical do you have to be to assume (a) they may not have had a great job in the first place (b) they are probably fundamentalists (c) it's unlikely they are going to be able to do much!! Whatever jobs these guys had, I feel pretty sure it was better than the insecurity of politics. Even seasoned politicians routinely lose so of course novices are going to have a hard time. As for religion : I am an agnostic, don't care much for any religion. But I have no problem quoting the Geeta or the Vedas or the Sermon on the Mount, so I seriously doubt a quotation from the Rig Veda makes u a fundie.
Despite the inherent insecurity and natural fear that the entrenched & corrupt politicians will not let them affect change they have decided to follow thier inner voice and make an attempt to do soemthing good. Instead of being applauded and lauded they seem to be generating cynicism and suspicion.
I for one, salute them and hope they can truly be catalysts for change in our moribund political system. Remember we get the politicians (I would not deign to call our current politicians leaders) we deserve.
I wonder if the leadership makes any difference. Policy framing is done by bureaucrats anyways. In fact it might be detrimental to have thorough intellectuals running the country. a lopsided idealistic view, a tendency that cultured class carries, would be an unnecessary baggage. and by the way who would vote for them?? Who would be able to relate to aerospace engineering when immediate concern is roti, kapdaa aur makaan.
Any IITian with or without experience would be better than the current lot of criminal and illiterate politicians. At least they are educated. Not just educated but quite well educated.
I believe if there is one metric which should decide who would be a better person managing the country, it would be education. For that matter not just managing the country but for doing anything responsible.
As on politics, don't you think people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Remember people like Manmohan Singh (no less a scholar than an IITian) losing from South Delhi once, supposed to be inhabited by 'educated kind'. We all want clean politics, but when it comes to voting, no one is ready to eschew his own caste/religion interests in favor of a candidate who might otherwise be the 'cleanest'.
Politics in India is a gutter and we hope that these guys will be able to cleanse it to some extent. Whether they suceed or not is a different issue-but the very fact that they have thought and implemented something is applaudable thousands of praise.
There is a saying that "Youth will have its swing" or that most inventions were attempted by youth who at that time did not know that they were inventions. One should still laud the initiative though it is different from Michael Dell of Bill Gates opting out of universities to start businesses.
At stated in the end, the whole issue is one of accountability. It is strange that for management goals we are accountable to our bosses on a daily or weekly basis but people in public life have no such accountability once they are elected.
Rajiv Gandhi with 400 MP's in parliament had stated that only 15 percent of the actual funds reached the poor. So the issue is not what the party stands for but how they are going to implement. Indira Gandhi coined the slogan "Garibi hatao" but it was Narasimha Rao/ Manmohan Singh who actually did it with liberalization. Even Dhirubhai Ambani was great because of implementation.
Anybody can launch a party with idealistic slogans which stalwarts from the film industry also did during emergency with the nationalist party. It turned out to be schoolboy enthusiasm.
Even if just to save our civilisation's past, what we need is a party that makes no bones about being influenced by our history but refuses to blindly follow regional/religious divisions...... If Gandhiji could quote the vedas and follow the Bhagvad Gita yet be act as a messiah for both religions, why can't we?
If these guys can draw crowd and make them listen, and remain focused on goals germane to their conviction, its good. But I fear the convinced-altruism of the IIT/IIM sort might make them think of this as some kind of non-profit start up. Politicians are made in Universities. IIT/IIMs, so far have been notable exceptions.
Notwithstanding my eternal, perpetual cynicism, my Best Wishes are with them.
Go, make a difference!
Getting back to the original topic - the IITians joining politics. My lengthy defence of a group of people I do not know personally is based merely on a matter of principle. Everybody deserves a chance.
Of course, politicians must be accountable, whether they are cowherds or IITians. Magar abhi to innings shuru hi hui hai... what follows may be a series of ducks or some brilliant centuries.
Let's wait and watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)