Although some part of industry had to be forced to accept foreign competition in the domestic markets, the ineffcient State-dependent education Gurus are lobbying hard to stop foreign universities from entering higher education service in India. They would cite various reasons why foreign universties should not be allowed to operate from within India.
The first and foremost, of course, is the Leftist Group and their chamchas in colleges and universities. They do not like any thing American: so American Universities should not be allowed in any case (just as in the case of supply nuclear electricity generating equipment and atomic fuels), may be Russian Universities may be allowed (as in the case of the proposed nuclear power plant at Nayachar in West Bengal with Russian support). Why? Anything foreign is bad unless the foreign thing has been purified in Marxism. Marxism is the only foreign thing that is allowed by Indian leftist. This is understable: those who dream to exploit one-sixth of the World population, would always insist that anything non-Marxist be banned in India, though many of today's Marxist leaders grew up eating wheat collected in begging bowls by India as alms from America. Scotish whisky may not require Marxist purification. Maybe some leftist like Russian Vodka.
But not merely the leftists but most Indians abhor anything foreign (other than what they puchase of foregn origin for private use and possession) and do not at all like foreign universities teaching Indian students in their Indian campuses. But most of these Indians have a daily dish containing potato, except those who became diabetic after 30 often avoid potato: it does not however matter that potato did not orginate in India but was introduced here through European influence and Europe got this from South America. India is the third largesr producer of potatoes in the World but it is basically something foreign, even though Marx also ate potatoes when he lived in Britain.
What are the things that are not foreign in India but purely domestiv and indegeneous? Virtually Zero. Yes, the concept of zero or Sunnya had originated in India along with some amount of Algebra. Astronomy, Astrology, Vedas, Upanishads, ayurveda (Indian medicine), epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, Kama Sutra, and the like originated in India. But modern mathematics, modern science and technology - all are essentially foreign. Even long after India stopped importing foreiners to rule India, India has continued to import or copy science, technology and education from abroad.
Education is essentially universal and universities are true to their name if they are universal, rather than being parochial or local. Higher education is all the more universal. Countries and nations that put up barriers to free flow of foreign education are destined to remain frogs in the well. India had sufferred on account of this during the period after Akbar and then again after Indpendence in 1947.
Even now Indian higher education is largely foreign or Universal rather than being Indian. Only elements of higher education in India that are weak are of British-India origin: they are (a) continuation of out-dated technology of imparting higher education, (b) dominance of incompetent university education administration in most universities (exceptions being certain institutes of maagement, institues of technology and some others), and (c) overwhelming dominance of poor quality teachers not required to upgrade themselves. These weaknesses persists because higher education is monopolised by State-subsidised universities and their employees, both teaching and non-teaching.
Even now most progressive teachers recommend textbooks authored by foreign scholars or modelled on foreigh textbooks. The teachers who oppose foreign universities setting up campuses in India are mostly those who studied foreign books during their post-graduate days. Why then they oppose the entry of foreign universities in India? Simply because the apprehend tha this may break their monopolistic exploitation of the bulging size of the Indian students in higher education and they may find some of their colleagues get higher pay in foreign universities and thereby degrade them as second class teachers.
But they do not say this explicityly. If you looka at the silly arguments they put forward, you can easily what distresses them. First, they say that foreign unicersities are not necessarily good or better than Indian universities. That is true. But what is the problem? Do they think that the Indian students are fools and pay for getting degrees from lower quality universities when better quality universties are available?
Second, they say that good foreign universities will not set up campuses in India. What is their peoblem then? Indian students can still go to study abroad in good universities.
Third, they say that only students of poor quality but belonging to rich households will go the Indian campuses of foreign universities. Even if this were correct, what is the problem. Let those stdents purchase a degree: their real worth would be found out by the employers through interviews, selection tests and actual performance in jobs. Either poor qualty rich students improve their quality or they will be discaded even if they have a degree.
Fourth, they say the foreign universities will lure away teachers from Indin Universities with higher salaries. So? If the teachers concerned are worth higher salary they should get that. Why should the rest be jealous? Moreover, higher salary may be on short tenure, renewable on performance basis ather than life-long employment at public money subsidised university employment.
Fifth, they say that the foreign universities may not have to bear the obligation of reservations and therefore Indian universities will be disadvantaged. But then foreign universities will not get subsidy from the government also: they have to fend for themselves by charging higher fees and therefore with restricted size of student population and provide higher quality to attract students. They would not get meritorios students from low income families while the Indian university teachers will ahve the benefit of such good students captive to them.
Sixth, foreign universities are a business. They will enter India of only they are allowed to make profits. But Indian universities are also making extraordinary hih profits and passing on them to the teachers: the teachers get paid by the government: it is ultimately the tax payers who make losses on university education. And, if foreign uiversities do not make money, they will not come. So, there is n problem. If they make money, then the Indian universities should also be able to make money and draw less subsidy from the Government. In primary and secondary education as well as management and engineering education, lot of Indian privately seyp educational institutions are making money, while Govt.- subsidised schools and universities are drawing subsidy from the Govt. This has been hppening. Nothing different will happen if foreign universities enter India.
Seventh, the number of Indian students going for study abroad at their own expenses is negligible, less than 1% of the potential students for higher education in India. Why should the Government take the trouble of passing a law allowing foreign universities for the tiny minority of rich students? India has a huge population. A small percentage may mean a large number. India is a country of minority democracy. There are laws for tribal minority, language minority, ethnic minority, religious minorities and so on. The number of rich industrialists are small. Yet government passes laws to protect them or remove barriers or restrictions on them. What sin have the rich students wanting to have foreign education within India at a lower cost than going abroad done that Government should not pass a law? Besides, if foreign universities set up campuses in India, some people will get employment there. What is the harm?
There may be more such silly arguments coming from learned men extending higher education policy-making service in India. But they might also ask: what is the great benefit from allowing foreign universities to set up Indian campuses? Very good silly question. I would not like to enumerate the benefits. But why do we need a benefit to remove a restriction on higher education in India? Why should an Indian student be not allowed to study in a foreig university's Indian campus approved by Indian government authority? Removal of such a restriction is the greatest benefit: in a democracy, the State should allow as much freedom to its citizens as is possible.
Mar 17, 2010
Mar 14, 2010
Democratic Statistica
Statistics For Government Decision Making
I have been reading news papers on among other things about what they write about economic affairs for the last 50 years or so. They come up with the same conclusions in different languages every x number of years. The same conclusions, of course valid ones, on the quality, reliability, timeliness and comprehensiveness official statistics have now come up again for the nth time. Statistically good performance by newspapers: only they are yet to learn the habit of referring back to the dates when they had published the same conclusions. That would be too much of statistical work to expect of journalist!
Founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in Kolkata on 17th December, 1931, the Indian Statistical Institute gained the status of an Institution of National Importance by an act of the Indian Parliament in 1959. The Government of India had set up a a Central Statistical Organization, National Sample Survey Organization and a Planning Commission, besides carrying out Census every decade.. So many statisticians are employed by the Central and State governments. Like IAS there is a IS (Statistical) S. What the people in ISS have been doing for all these years? Producing unreliable, inadequate and out-of date statistical information for decades (rather more than half a century)?
In any case, even if data were collected with diligence, processed accurately and reliable information generated without much time-lag, how that is going to help? If the inflation is high, or food scarcity is acute or the fiscal deficit is high or electricity and coal pilferage is high, Government will still continue to say that they are taking all the various measurers to solve these problems. Quality Statistics is useful in the hands of or to the brains of Quality Decision makers. Poor quality decision-making brains cannot be compensated by improved quality statistics. How much of even the quality statistics currently available helping the Nation? What more information do we need to know more accurately and timely about the percentage of females in the age-group 18 -80 and the conditions of women in order to select women candidates to represent political parties in elections or reserve constituencies for women? How much time we require to decide on these: 60 years or14 years? How much more information did we need to know that which farmers have the lowest productivity in wheat/ rice production per labor or per acre or per kg of fertilizer? What information more is required to decide about what is the optimal pricing of fertilizers?
Statistical information is the staple food for analysts and researchers. They need more information and quality information to search out underlying trends, patterns and probable truths. Statistical information is also required to impress others about the great knowledge that one has: speakers in conferences, political gatherings, elected representative bodies and public debates and TV panels need to give out statistics (relevant or irrelevant, true or contrived, partial or misleading) to make an intellectual impression on the audience and other speakers).
But Statistics has also other probably no less important uses. One of this is for decision-making., rather informed decision –making. When decision-makers require they get out the best possible statistical evidence and take calculated risks to arrive at decisions. Decision-makers know what statistics they need and also know that they cannot get all the statistics they need because statistics data collection has a cost. They therefore follow the rule of working with the minimum but critical statistical information. Good decision makers and policy makers do not complain about statistics not being available: they ensure that the minimum critical and reliable information gets collected. But such good decision makers capable of and actually relying on quantitative statistics are rare. The Government decision-making being a time consuming process involving political, inter-departmental/ ministerial bargaining and clash of ego-based/ ideology-based opinions/ beliefs, seldom does availability of reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive statistics seem to matter much. Only when people trust statisticians on the reliability of statistics they supply, both raw and analyzed, and the decision-makers shed their hunches, beliefs and hidden interest in the decision-outcome, there is a meaning of spending money in collecting and processing statistics. Democratic processes do not make a very congenial atmosphere for effective use of statistical information and methods as decision-making inputs: rather they make a mockery of the use of statistics. Citizens tend to disbelieve the statistics supplied to support official decisions. My observations are simply untested hypothesis: they can be tested by statistics and statistical methods. But such attempts would never be made possible in democracies even if it was possible to effectively enforce the right to information, unless, however, there is a separate and independent government decision evaluation commission that continuously review each government decision on a continuing basis and sends its report directly to the office of the President for record.
I have been reading news papers on among other things about what they write about economic affairs for the last 50 years or so. They come up with the same conclusions in different languages every x number of years. The same conclusions, of course valid ones, on the quality, reliability, timeliness and comprehensiveness official statistics have now come up again for the nth time. Statistically good performance by newspapers: only they are yet to learn the habit of referring back to the dates when they had published the same conclusions. That would be too much of statistical work to expect of journalist!
Founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in Kolkata on 17th December, 1931, the Indian Statistical Institute gained the status of an Institution of National Importance by an act of the Indian Parliament in 1959. The Government of India had set up a a Central Statistical Organization, National Sample Survey Organization and a Planning Commission, besides carrying out Census every decade.. So many statisticians are employed by the Central and State governments. Like IAS there is a IS (Statistical) S. What the people in ISS have been doing for all these years? Producing unreliable, inadequate and out-of date statistical information for decades (rather more than half a century)?
In any case, even if data were collected with diligence, processed accurately and reliable information generated without much time-lag, how that is going to help? If the inflation is high, or food scarcity is acute or the fiscal deficit is high or electricity and coal pilferage is high, Government will still continue to say that they are taking all the various measurers to solve these problems. Quality Statistics is useful in the hands of or to the brains of Quality Decision makers. Poor quality decision-making brains cannot be compensated by improved quality statistics. How much of even the quality statistics currently available helping the Nation? What more information do we need to know more accurately and timely about the percentage of females in the age-group 18 -80 and the conditions of women in order to select women candidates to represent political parties in elections or reserve constituencies for women? How much time we require to decide on these: 60 years or14 years? How much more information did we need to know that which farmers have the lowest productivity in wheat/ rice production per labor or per acre or per kg of fertilizer? What information more is required to decide about what is the optimal pricing of fertilizers?
Statistical information is the staple food for analysts and researchers. They need more information and quality information to search out underlying trends, patterns and probable truths. Statistical information is also required to impress others about the great knowledge that one has: speakers in conferences, political gatherings, elected representative bodies and public debates and TV panels need to give out statistics (relevant or irrelevant, true or contrived, partial or misleading) to make an intellectual impression on the audience and other speakers).
But Statistics has also other probably no less important uses. One of this is for decision-making., rather informed decision –making. When decision-makers require they get out the best possible statistical evidence and take calculated risks to arrive at decisions. Decision-makers know what statistics they need and also know that they cannot get all the statistics they need because statistics data collection has a cost. They therefore follow the rule of working with the minimum but critical statistical information. Good decision makers and policy makers do not complain about statistics not being available: they ensure that the minimum critical and reliable information gets collected. But such good decision makers capable of and actually relying on quantitative statistics are rare. The Government decision-making being a time consuming process involving political, inter-departmental/ ministerial bargaining and clash of ego-based/ ideology-based opinions/ beliefs, seldom does availability of reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive statistics seem to matter much. Only when people trust statisticians on the reliability of statistics they supply, both raw and analyzed, and the decision-makers shed their hunches, beliefs and hidden interest in the decision-outcome, there is a meaning of spending money in collecting and processing statistics. Democratic processes do not make a very congenial atmosphere for effective use of statistical information and methods as decision-making inputs: rather they make a mockery of the use of statistics. Citizens tend to disbelieve the statistics supplied to support official decisions. My observations are simply untested hypothesis: they can be tested by statistics and statistical methods. But such attempts would never be made possible in democracies even if it was possible to effectively enforce the right to information, unless, however, there is a separate and independent government decision evaluation commission that continuously review each government decision on a continuing basis and sends its report directly to the office of the President for record.
Free Democratic Reservation
Reservation Syndrome: A Psychological Sickness
People have been debating in recent days about reservation of LokShava (Parliamentary) seats for women. Most people agree, but a few object. Those who object say that they are not against reservation for women, but they want simultaneously reservation for minorities (meaning Muslims). Just as women are backward and handicapped so are the minorities. Those who support women reservation say that one can think about reservation for minorities later: some of them feel that reservation for minority women within reservation for women is a fallacy. No one has however said that reservation on religious basis is anti- secular. If seats can be reserved for one religious community, so can the geographical areas: that is only a good step towards creating another Islamstan again by India.
But Indians are more addicted to the right of getting reservation quotas than the issue of secularism. Today’s secular parties are by their acts accepting that creating Pakistan out of India in 1947 was a great secular reservation quota act on the part of the freedom fighters trying to end their British slavery.
The height of rational argument is that each possible formation of groups like for example those who are gays, those who were specs, those who have aids, those who are thugs, those who are Maoists, those who support foreign terrorist and the like are backward and handicapped groups and therefore each such group deserves reservation quota Of course all Indians are a special category accounting for only 16% of the World population and are economically, technologically backward. Therefore, in the world there should be quota for India and Indians. Hindus are a small percentage of Word population and hence Hindus need a special reservation by the Hindus. Each individual is a minority and many individuals are weak and backward in India. All such individual therefore must have a quota: for example, 15 years of free education quota, followed by 30 years of employment quota and a quota of a Parliamentary seat for 1 month in a lifetime. If necessary, the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of Paliamentary seats to 5430543 with 54330000 seats filled in through a lottery scheme.
Quota within quota is not a mere fallacy: it is a double compensating fallacy. The first fallacy of the highest order is the Quota without further quota itself; subsequent quota within the first quota is another fallacy that compensates for the first fallacy because their conjunction. There are alternative valid options available, but Indians prefer fallacious logic. So they ignore simpler solutions. Men and women are roughly equal in number. Just ban all men from casting votes for women and women from voting for men. Why go in for such complicated percentage calculations unnecessarily? Women will ensure that there is just one female candidate in each constituency and at least two men candidates.
Reservation earlier days required paying a premium. But Indians want everything free. Reservation is a free commodity. You normally reserve your right to something by paying something in advance: reservation free of cost is looting and anti-democratic.
Democracy was not designed to look at the past but to look at the present and the future.
But Indian democracy is all about correcting the past. The rich, the higher castes, the Hindus and the like- all had enjoyed quota privileges in the past without democracy. Now democracy should correct the past making present and future quotas for the people who did not enjoy reservation in the past. Except for the Adivasis: they had reserved the forests and the jungles for the, selves in the past: if they have to give up the jungles in favor of factories and animals, they must get fresh reservation outside the jungle/ forest areas.
Quotas must be defended by statistics and experts. Statistics is about past and Indians have great attachment for the past. But why quote Committees/ Commissions of the past? Just take another survey by another commission: you will know how millions of good and honest men, who prefer to remain silent, are being exploited by cruel women at home while so many husband and wife political party couples exploit other men and women. You will find Independents do not get much seats in elections. Non-political independent candidates also require reservation. Have reservation for people not belonging to political parties: 25% quota for the Independents: 10% for gays and 10% for lesbians and 15% for animal lovers, and of course 39% for retired criminals and 31% for retired Maoists and other terrorists as they need to be encouraged to come back into the mainstream.
People have been debating in recent days about reservation of LokShava (Parliamentary) seats for women. Most people agree, but a few object. Those who object say that they are not against reservation for women, but they want simultaneously reservation for minorities (meaning Muslims). Just as women are backward and handicapped so are the minorities. Those who support women reservation say that one can think about reservation for minorities later: some of them feel that reservation for minority women within reservation for women is a fallacy. No one has however said that reservation on religious basis is anti- secular. If seats can be reserved for one religious community, so can the geographical areas: that is only a good step towards creating another Islamstan again by India.
But Indians are more addicted to the right of getting reservation quotas than the issue of secularism. Today’s secular parties are by their acts accepting that creating Pakistan out of India in 1947 was a great secular reservation quota act on the part of the freedom fighters trying to end their British slavery.
The height of rational argument is that each possible formation of groups like for example those who are gays, those who were specs, those who have aids, those who are thugs, those who are Maoists, those who support foreign terrorist and the like are backward and handicapped groups and therefore each such group deserves reservation quota Of course all Indians are a special category accounting for only 16% of the World population and are economically, technologically backward. Therefore, in the world there should be quota for India and Indians. Hindus are a small percentage of Word population and hence Hindus need a special reservation by the Hindus. Each individual is a minority and many individuals are weak and backward in India. All such individual therefore must have a quota: for example, 15 years of free education quota, followed by 30 years of employment quota and a quota of a Parliamentary seat for 1 month in a lifetime. If necessary, the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of Paliamentary seats to 5430543 with 54330000 seats filled in through a lottery scheme.
Quota within quota is not a mere fallacy: it is a double compensating fallacy. The first fallacy of the highest order is the Quota without further quota itself; subsequent quota within the first quota is another fallacy that compensates for the first fallacy because their conjunction. There are alternative valid options available, but Indians prefer fallacious logic. So they ignore simpler solutions. Men and women are roughly equal in number. Just ban all men from casting votes for women and women from voting for men. Why go in for such complicated percentage calculations unnecessarily? Women will ensure that there is just one female candidate in each constituency and at least two men candidates.
Reservation earlier days required paying a premium. But Indians want everything free. Reservation is a free commodity. You normally reserve your right to something by paying something in advance: reservation free of cost is looting and anti-democratic.
Democracy was not designed to look at the past but to look at the present and the future.
But Indian democracy is all about correcting the past. The rich, the higher castes, the Hindus and the like- all had enjoyed quota privileges in the past without democracy. Now democracy should correct the past making present and future quotas for the people who did not enjoy reservation in the past. Except for the Adivasis: they had reserved the forests and the jungles for the, selves in the past: if they have to give up the jungles in favor of factories and animals, they must get fresh reservation outside the jungle/ forest areas.
Quotas must be defended by statistics and experts. Statistics is about past and Indians have great attachment for the past. But why quote Committees/ Commissions of the past? Just take another survey by another commission: you will know how millions of good and honest men, who prefer to remain silent, are being exploited by cruel women at home while so many husband and wife political party couples exploit other men and women. You will find Independents do not get much seats in elections. Non-political independent candidates also require reservation. Have reservation for people not belonging to political parties: 25% quota for the Independents: 10% for gays and 10% for lesbians and 15% for animal lovers, and of course 39% for retired criminals and 31% for retired Maoists and other terrorists as they need to be encouraged to come back into the mainstream.
Democracy For Innovation
Innovative Individuals or Innovative Society?
Some good Indians want that Indian society to become an innovative society. Everyone knows that lots of Indians have proved themselves as high class innovators while being in India or after immigrating to other countries, especially to the United States. Besides those we know in the area of science, sports, management, films and music, there are many Indian factory workers, farmers, traders and artisans who have make lots of innovations every year but we do not come to know or fail to recognize them. However, the good and smart Indians wish that most Indians become innovative. And, as is usual of Indians, they want government in the country to do something about making most people innovation-inclined, innovation-motivated and innovation capable.
It is this that is most amusing of the innovative attitude of the Indians: they will always depend on Government to lead as Masters or Parents while the Governments are supposed to be servants of the people. Indians think of Government as the tremendously powerful ghost that appears on the scene as soon as the magic metal lamp is rubbed to take orders from the owner and then promptly delivers whatever the lamp-owners or rather the lamp-rubber commands the ghost to do. India has been freed from foreign rule only 63 years ago: still a relatively child society that believes in fair tales.
Children do not have the capacity to realize that human beings and societies are naturally and inherently innovative, especially when they face challenges and problems and when they are not yet rich enough to be able to afford wasting their time in non-innovative activities. Children perceive the issue as one of creating an innovative society while the real issue is of not forcing human beings to become slaves of unscientific beliefs and faith on the magical power of Governments, political parties and bureaucracy. If you keep people addicted to the constant music that governments, especially of the democratic and socialistic variety are the savior of the people, the societies become copy cats, initiative-less, dependent and behave as slaves of the government and political parties. Slaves cannot become innovative. When people get addicted to dependence on Governments to solve their problems of technological backwardness, illiteracy, poor education, lack of heath and poverty, innovation just keeps waiting for people to come out of poverty, low technology skills, illiteracy, poor education and poor health.
To be innovative, individuals in a society needs to face problems and solve the problems through innovation, rather than resorting to gimmickry and dependence on government’s money and efforts.. Since governments are only as good as the people are, especially in a democracy and communist framework, they cannot become innovative. When Governments are believed to be necessary evils that can only destroy societies rather than build societies, governments are stopped from taking the powers away from individuals to solve their own economic problems. When governments become slaves of the people rather than people becoming slaves of governments and political parties in the name of democracy or some outdated, and irrelevant, two- or-more-century old religious scriptures and ideologies, innovation deserts such societies. In fact, the question "how to make India innovative" is a symptom of minds that does not have faith in powers of the individuals to innovate. Innovations make innovative societies. Debating about how some people can transform a society from the stage of non-innovativeness to the stage of being highly innovative is just the opposite of innovation. Innovators do not ask how to innovate, they just do that. Our mindset is counter-innovative because we believe that some policies are needed to make us innovate. Former British slaves started ruling this country for so many years: they succeeded in making their subsequent generation to convert from slaves of the foreigners to slaves of the natives. Innovation does not come that way through planning and policy-making and State intervention. Innovations come from each individual taking the responsibility and freedom in solving each person's problems without hurting others. Only such free people with responsibility to solve their own problems can innovate and use their education, knowledge, skills and imagination.
Some good Indians want that Indian society to become an innovative society. Everyone knows that lots of Indians have proved themselves as high class innovators while being in India or after immigrating to other countries, especially to the United States. Besides those we know in the area of science, sports, management, films and music, there are many Indian factory workers, farmers, traders and artisans who have make lots of innovations every year but we do not come to know or fail to recognize them. However, the good and smart Indians wish that most Indians become innovative. And, as is usual of Indians, they want government in the country to do something about making most people innovation-inclined, innovation-motivated and innovation capable.
It is this that is most amusing of the innovative attitude of the Indians: they will always depend on Government to lead as Masters or Parents while the Governments are supposed to be servants of the people. Indians think of Government as the tremendously powerful ghost that appears on the scene as soon as the magic metal lamp is rubbed to take orders from the owner and then promptly delivers whatever the lamp-owners or rather the lamp-rubber commands the ghost to do. India has been freed from foreign rule only 63 years ago: still a relatively child society that believes in fair tales.
Children do not have the capacity to realize that human beings and societies are naturally and inherently innovative, especially when they face challenges and problems and when they are not yet rich enough to be able to afford wasting their time in non-innovative activities. Children perceive the issue as one of creating an innovative society while the real issue is of not forcing human beings to become slaves of unscientific beliefs and faith on the magical power of Governments, political parties and bureaucracy. If you keep people addicted to the constant music that governments, especially of the democratic and socialistic variety are the savior of the people, the societies become copy cats, initiative-less, dependent and behave as slaves of the government and political parties. Slaves cannot become innovative. When people get addicted to dependence on Governments to solve their problems of technological backwardness, illiteracy, poor education, lack of heath and poverty, innovation just keeps waiting for people to come out of poverty, low technology skills, illiteracy, poor education and poor health.
To be innovative, individuals in a society needs to face problems and solve the problems through innovation, rather than resorting to gimmickry and dependence on government’s money and efforts.. Since governments are only as good as the people are, especially in a democracy and communist framework, they cannot become innovative. When Governments are believed to be necessary evils that can only destroy societies rather than build societies, governments are stopped from taking the powers away from individuals to solve their own economic problems. When governments become slaves of the people rather than people becoming slaves of governments and political parties in the name of democracy or some outdated, and irrelevant, two- or-more-century old religious scriptures and ideologies, innovation deserts such societies. In fact, the question "how to make India innovative" is a symptom of minds that does not have faith in powers of the individuals to innovate. Innovations make innovative societies. Debating about how some people can transform a society from the stage of non-innovativeness to the stage of being highly innovative is just the opposite of innovation. Innovators do not ask how to innovate, they just do that. Our mindset is counter-innovative because we believe that some policies are needed to make us innovate. Former British slaves started ruling this country for so many years: they succeeded in making their subsequent generation to convert from slaves of the foreigners to slaves of the natives. Innovation does not come that way through planning and policy-making and State intervention. Innovations come from each individual taking the responsibility and freedom in solving each person's problems without hurting others. Only such free people with responsibility to solve their own problems can innovate and use their education, knowledge, skills and imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)