Tagged! :-)
So, I have finally been tagged. Was thanking my stars nobody thought of me so far. But Cris broke the jinx. Thanks Cris! 🙂 Here we go. The rules, as I found them on Cris’ blog.
RULE #1 People who have been tagged must write their answers on their blogs and replace any question that they dislike with a new question formulated by themselves.
RULE #2 Tag 6 people to do this quiz and those who are tagged cannot refuse. These people must state who they were tagged by and cannot tag the person whom they were tagged by continue this game by sending it to other people.
1. If your lover betrayed you what would your reaction be?
Hmm. Tough one already. Probably walk out. And certainly never forgive.
2. What’s it that you see in an ideal partner?
A stable head on his shoulders, and a mind of his own. Even if it means we fight.
3. What, according to you, is the perfect date?
Cappuccino, and more cappuccino…and more cappuccino! 😛
4. Would you like to have children soon enough? Or would you wait till your mid-thirties for the first child?
Replacing question: Do you like children?
I prefer to answer Cris’ question. I like kids as long as they don’t cry.
5. Will you fall in love with your best friend?
No. We were never friends. Cannot think of a friend as a lover.
6. Which is more blessed: loving someone or being loved by someone?
I am greedy. I want both. But, if I have to choose. Being loved is much better.
7. How long do you intend to wait for someone you love?
As long as necessary. Forever.
8. If the person you secretly like is attached, what will you do?
Walk away. It’s not worth it. As I said, being loved is better than loving.
9. If you could root for one social cause, what would it be?
Free education for children. For as long as they want to study.
10. Do you lie?
Yes. I would be in major trouble if I did not. 😛
11. Where do you see yourself 10 years from now?
Happily married, two kids, enough money to live, happy with work. Don’t ask what work I will be doing. I have no clue.
12. What’s your fear?
Losing people I love. It’s always been my greatest fear.
13. What kind of person do you think the person who tagged you is?
A good writer who I hope will be famous some day. Then, I can proudly say I knew her all those years ago. 😛
14. Would you rather be single and rich or married and poor?
Married and poor. Can’t think of life without him.
15. If you fall in love with two people simultaneously who will you pick?
Lol. Sweet dreams. Falling in love once is bad enough. Twice?? No thanks.
16. Would you give all in a relationship?
Yes. Without compromising some basic principles.
17. Would you forgive and forget someone no matter how horrible a thing he has done?
Same as Cris. Might forgive, but will definitely not forget.
18. Do you prefer being single or in a relationship?
In a relationship of course.
19. Your all time favourite song. Only ONE. And why?
Hmm… Tough one again. Will settle for New York Nagaram from Sillunu Oru Kaadal.
Tagging.
Can’t think of anyone in particular. I leave this tag free for anyone to take up. 🙂
On the US financial crisis
Check out this great post by Greatbong. If you have no idea what the hell is happening in the US, this is a good place to go. 🙂
Sexism among IITians
There! It’s official. You have no business being in the IITs if you are not a man. What else do you assume while reading this webpage on the site of the latest IIT global summit? The IIT alumni global summit will take place in December, at IIT Madras. While the IITian "chooses to inspire, innovate and transform", the organisers have thought of "an exclusive track designed to keep Spouses and Families completely informed and entertained". And presumably, spouse in their vocabulary means wife. Because presumably again, all IIT graduates must necessarily be men. Women have nothing to do the institutions unless they are married to its male graduates, right? And the programmes are meant for the "complete woman", who must balance personal and professional life. The men have better things to do. Like inspire, innovate and transform. Seriously, what the fuck?
They have a fantastic guest list of "complete women." Hema Malini, because she is the very epitome of womanly grace. Shilpa Shetty, because she shot to fame with Big Brother and because of Richard Gere kissing her. Then the women will be taken shopping for jewels and saris. Because, that’s all they care about anyway. Emma hits the nail right on the head. It sucks! This reeks of a very chauvinistic attitude. IITians may be brilliant, but they certainly do not seem to hold much store by women’s intelligence. Abi compiles a list of all those who are disgusted. Ludwig calls its "unfuckingbelievable."
Well, it is. I am rapidly losing respect for that bunch of morons who are organising this event and irritating the life out of the rest of the educated crowd. But to me, this is simply a manifestation of a deeper malaise in Indian society. Some men, however educated they may be, cannot really accept that a woman can be equally intelligent. They don’t seem to see, their IIT education notwithstanding, that there can be women IIT graduates who choose to bring their husbands around. Oh of course not. A woman IITian would only be married to another IITian right? After all, which man would want to marry a woman more intelligent than him? It would hurt his, already fragile ego, right? Ugh! These men!! They are disgusting. Someone tell them they are being complete asses!!
Also, here is an image from the 1950s. Speaks volumes about the sexism that existed at the time. All of it is crap, but this one takes the cake.
"Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first – remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours."
Of course. Like this…
Husband: I had a terrible day at the club this evening. I was interrupted three times while drinking whisky by some moron.
Wife: Listen, I have something to tell you. The gas connection expired, the TV conked out and you have forgotten to pay the electricity bill.
H: But listen, the whisky was anyway very watery. God knows what they did.
W: The home loan chap came home today. We have to vacate by tomorrow because you have defaulted.
H: The whisky…
Of course. His topics of conversation are more important than yours. But of course!
Globalisation and higher education
I attended a CSA conference on Globalisation and its Impact on higher education this morning. I came away feeling that the speakers were tilting a little too much towards the left for my taste. I also found that one particular speaker was stuck somewhere in the 19th century for his attitude towards globalisation in the education sector. The speaker in question, Dr. Loganathan, is from the Department of Economics at Sir Thyagaraya College in Chennai. So far so good. The problem starts when he opened his mouth to talk economics. Let me explain. He has a problem with the private sector in education. He also has a problem with foreign participation in education. That is fine, as long as you can substantiate the belief, especially in a panel discussion, with decent arguments. That is where the core problem lies. I wanted to rebut him point by point right there, but not wanting to hijack the discussion, I am limiting myself to this blog. His arguments are given in bold. They are summarised from my notes and are not quoted verbatim. My rebuttals in normal font. So, here we go!
Private participation in education has resulted in too many private engineering and arts and science colleges. Since these colleges charge very high fees, the weaker sections of the population are denied access to education.
Right! I agree. But, these private colleges exist to supplement supply of education on the government’s side, and not to replace it.These "weaker sections" have access to public institutions (colleges, universities, schools etc.), which provide highly subsidised, even free education. Now, what about those who are economically backward but cannot access public institutions because of our reservation policy? I admit, that is a problem. But, one that is completely irrelevant to the discussion on globalisation and its impact on education in India. Another theme for another day.
Private institutions will deny the right of the teachers to form unions, and therefore, the right to go on a strike if they so wish. With education being completely public, there is no such danger.
Of course, there is no danger of anyone ever making teachers accountable. Because, every time someone asks questions, they will go on strike, colleges will shut down indefinitely and students will be affected. Let’s get one thing straight here. Going on a strike in not a right. It is a criminal waste of time, and the taxpayers’ money. Will our communists ever get this right? Kerala is stagnating because of this.
With the entry of the private sector, education is increasingly commercialised. This results in the degradation of Indian culture and the disappearance of the Guru-shishya Parampara.
Eh? Of fine. If you insist. But frankly, I don’t see the point at all. I dismissed this one as the rants of an old man.
The entry of the private sector creates competition. This results in private institutions offering sub-standard education.
I beg to differ. Competition inspires improvement in quality. Also, all public institutions are not great. Our very own Madras University is a case in point. It is not equipped with the most basic facilities such as a photocopy machine or a fax. It possesses hardly any computers for a university of that size, and a wi-fi zone is perhaps too much to hope for. In brief, lack of quality is a generic problem in education in India. At least in the public sector, they can procure these things from a part of the profits they make (we hope).
IIT graduates quit the country to serve a foreign state. This is a waste of the taxpayers’ money. In effect, we are subsidising education for those studying abroad.
Hmm. What to say to such a dumb argument? Don’t give things away free. Follow the IIM route. Make credit available for students who get admission into premier institutions. That way, you provide access and don’t waste taxpayers’ money. What say?
Foreign universities want to accredit and evaluate Indian universities. This is a loss in national pride and dignity.
It is not. We really need a global yardstick for measuring quality of education. If that must be done by foreign universities, so be it. Why are we unnecessarily making this an issue of national pride? We could insist on the same in other countries. If our universities are willing to go abroad that is.
On the whole, it was impossible to digest the fact that a senior professor from one of Chennai’s oldest colleges was talking as if he belonged to the 19th century. We need this mindset to change. Maybe it will be difficult to change the mindset of that generation. It is after all, the generation that has seen the worst of economic crises in their youth. But, let’s hope that at least the younger generations will see globalisation and liberalisation of trade, not as a threat but as an opportunity. Let’s hope.
On violence and CEO deaths
The lynching of the CEO of an Italian auto parts manufacturer is bad enough. What’s worse is the Labour Minister Oscar Fernandes’ justification of the violence proportioning the blame on the management that "pushed the employees to the limit." I am no longer shocked at the politician’s lack of tact, and complete callousness. My few years of observing Indian politics has taught me that we cannot expect any better from them. But, what got my goat were a few comments on Nita’s post on the same issue. Especially a comment by Odzer where he pretty much justified the killing because he was a big shot. I agree that we do not hear about the death of the "common man" every day. I also agree that there is so much publicity because he was the CEO of a company. But tell me something. Does the fact that Mr. Chaudhry made a lot of money as the CEO of an Italian firm justify his killing? Does his family not mourn his death as much as the family of a sweeper who dies? Especially when the person was killed?
The problem is not just with this case. The problem lies in the basic distrust of those who make lots of money. This was a trend I noticed during the recent financial meltdown. Most people I spoke to were far from sympathetic to the fact that thousands of investment bankers lost their jobs. In fact, most of them simply said, "They made so much money for so long. It won’t hurt them to be without a job now." What we do not understand is that someone is not making money at someone else’s expense. Life is not a zero-sum game. For CEOs and investment bankers to be successful, a factory worker or an investor does not necessarily have to suffer. Why are we so apathetic towards the plight of a top official? We kept quiet when an engineer from IIT was murdered in Bihar. But, the Singur issue is burning. We all sympathise and empathise with those poor farmers who are being exploited by the tyrannical Tatas. But, we fail to look at the other side of the issue or take into account the loss incurred by Tata Motors. And this is simply because the Tatas are the rich capitalists exploiters. I may sound extremely pissed off. The fact is that I really am. As long as we cling on to feudal and outdated notions of industry, ownership and investment, we will never progress. That’s what the Communists really want right? So that they can blame the big, bad capitalist world for the stagnation? We are a democracy> If we do not progress, if we stagnate and suffer in chronic poverty, it is because we elect people like Oscar Fernandes who will do anything to preserve his vote bank. After all, we only get the governance we deserve.