Internals are here and holidays are soon to come!!! Lets all make this good!!!!!
DR. APJ Abdul Kalaam's speech in Hyderabad.
Monday, August 28, 2006
In 3000 years of our history, people from all over the world have comeand invaded us, captured our lands, conquered our minds. FromAlexander onwards. The Greeks, the Turks, the Moguls, the Portuguese,the British,the French, the Dutch, all of them came and looted us,took over what was ours. Yet we have not done this to any othernation. We have not conquered anyone. We have not grabbed their land, theirculture, their history and tried to enforce our way of life on them.Why? Because we respect the freedom of others. That is why my firstvision is that of FREEDOM. I believe that India got its first visionof this in 1857, when we started the war of independence. It is thisfreedom that we must protect and nurture and build on. If we are notfree, no one will respect us. My second vision for India is DEVELOPMENT. For fifty years we havebeen a developing nation. It is time we see ourselves as a developednation. We are among top 5 nations of the world in terms of GDP Wehave 10 percent growth rate in most areas. Our poverty levels arefalling. Our achievements are being globally recognized today. Yet welack the self-confidence to see ourselves as a developed nation, self-reliant and self-assured. Isn't this incorrect? I have a THIRD vision. India must stand up to the world. Because I believe that, unless Indiastands up to the world, no one will respect us. Only strength respectsstrength. We must be strong not only as a military power but also asan economic power. Both must go hand-in-hand. My good fortune was tohave worked with three great minds. Dr. Vikram Sarabhai of the Dept.of space,Professor Satish Dhawan, who succeeded him and Dr.BrahmPrakash, father of nuclear material. I was lucky to have worked withall three of them closely and consider this the great opportunity ofmy life. I see four milestones in my career: Twenty years I spent in ISRO. I was given the opportunity to be theproject director for India's first satellite launch vehicle, SLV3. Theone that launched Rohini. These years played a very important role in my lifeof Scientist. After my ISRO years, I joined DRDO and got a chance tobe the part of India's guided missile program. It was my second blisswhen Agni met its mission requirements in 1994. The Dept. of Atomic Energy and DRDO had this tremendous partnership inthe recent nuclear tests, on May 11 and 13. This was the third bliss.The joy of participating with my team in these nuclear tests andproving to the world that India can make it, that we are no longer adeveloping nation but one of them. It made me feel very proud as anIndian. The fact that we have now developed for Agni a re-entrystructure, for which we have developed this new material. A Very lightmaterial called carbon-carbon.One day an orthopedic surgeon from NizamInstitute of Medical Sciences visited my laboratory. He lifted thematerial and found it so light that he took me to his hospital andshowed me his patients. There were these little girls and boys withheavy metallic calipers weighing over three Kg. each,dragging theirfeet around. He said to me: Please remove the pain of my patients. Inthree weeks, we made these Floor reaction Orthosis 300-gram calipersand took them to the orthopedic center. The children didn't believetheir eyes. From dragging around a three kg. load on their legs, theycould now move around! Their parents had tears in their eyes. That wasmy fourth bliss! Why is the media here so negative? Why are we inIndia so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a greatnation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them.Why?We are the first in milk production.We are number one in Remote sensing satellites.We are the second largest producer of wheat.We are the second largest producer of rice.Look at Dr. Sudarshan, he has transferred the tribal village into aself-sustaining, self driving unit. There are millions of suchachievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news andfailures and disastersI was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It wasthe day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had takenplace. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper hadthe picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformedhis desert land into an orchid and a granary. It was this inspiringpicture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings,bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among othernews. In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime.Why are we so NEGATIVE? Another question : Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreignthings? We want foreign TVs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreigntechnology.Why this obsession with everything imported. Do we notrealize that self-respect comes with self-reliance? I was in Hyderabadgiving this lecture, when a 14 year old girl asked me for myautograph. I asked her what her goal in life is. She replied: I wantto live in a developed India. For her, you and I will have to buildthis developed India. You must proclaim. India is not anunder-developed nation; it is a highly developed nation. Do you have 10 minutes? Allow me to come back with a vengeance. Got 10minutes for your country? If yes, then read; otherwise, choice is yours. YOU say that our government is inefficient.YOU say that ourlaws are too old.YOU say that the municipality does not pick up thegarbage.YOU say that the phones don' t work, the railways are a joke,the airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach theirdestination. YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolutepits.YOU say, say and say. What do YOU do about it? Take a person on his way to Singapore..... Give him a name - YOURS.Give him a face - YOURS. YOU walk out of the airport and you are atyour International best. In Singapore you don't throw cigarette buttson the roads or eat in the stores. YOU are as proud of theirUnderground links as they are. You pay $5 (approx. Rs.60) to drivethrough Orchard Road (equivalent of Mahim Causeway or Pedder Road)between 5 PM and 8 PM. YOU comeback to the parking lot to punch your parkingticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mallirrespective of your status identity. In Singapore you don't sayanything, DO YOU? YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan,in Dubai. YOU would not dare to go out without your head covered inJeddah. YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephoneexchange in London at 10 pounds ( Rs.650) a month to, "see to it thatmy STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else." YOU would not dareto speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell thetraffic cop, "Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I amso and so's son. Take your two bucks and get lost." YOU wouldn't chuckan empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on thebeaches in Australia and New Zealand. Why don't YOU spit Paan on thestreets of Tokyo?Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fakecertificates in Boston???We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countriesbut cannot in your own.You who will throw papers and cigarettes on theroad the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved andappreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be the samehere in India? Once in an interview, the famous Ex-municipal commis sioner ofBombay,Mr.Tinaikar, had a point to make. "Rich people's dogs arewalked on the streets to leave their affluent droppings all over theplace," he said. "And then the same people turn around to criticizeand blame the authorities for inefficiency and dirty pavements. What do they expect the officers to do? Go down with a broom every time their dog feelsthe pressure in his bowels? In America every dog owner has to clean upafter his pet has done the job.Same in Japan. Will the Indian citizendo that here?" He's right. We go to the polls to choose a government and after thatforfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered andexpect the government to do everything for us whilst our contributionis totally negative. We expect the government to clean up but we arenot going to stop chucking garbage all over the place nor are we goingto stop to pick a up a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin.We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not goingto learn the proper use of bathrooms. We want Indian Airlines and AirIndia to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not goingto stop pilfering at the least opportunity.This applies even to thestaff who is known not to pass on the service to the public. When itcomes to burning social issues like those related to women, dowry,girl child and others, we make loud drawing room protestations andcontinue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? "It's the whole systemwhich has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons'rights to a dowry." So who's going to change the system? What does asystem consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of ourneighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and thegovernment. But definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to usactually making a positive contribution to the system we lockourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into thedistance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along& work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leavethe country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask intheir glory and praise their system. When New York becomes insecure werun to England. When England experiences unemployment, we take thenext flight out to the Gulf. When the Gulf is war struck, we demand tobe rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is outto abuse and rape the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system.Our conscience is mortgaged to money. Dear Indians, The article is highly thought inductive, calls for agreat deal of introspection and pricks one's conscience too....I amechoing J.F.Kennedy's words to his fellow Americans to relate to Indians....."ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIA AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE INDIAWHAT AMERICA AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE TODAY" Lets do what India needs from us. Thank you,Dr. Abdul Kalaam( PRESIDENT OF INDIA )
-contributed by- Gayathri Nayak Ist B.A. Journalism
When we speak about Higher Education, instantly our imagination takes us beyond, and lets our mind see us in a good job, with an excellent salary and a happy family. Isn’t that a dream for all of us? Today, every one has realised this dream and knows that with the easy availability of Higher Education, this dream can be reality for each and every determined individual. The present day student never thinks twice about going ahead with his/her Higher Education, simply because Higher Education is no longer a privilege, but a basic right.
An Introduction to Higher Education
As the Wikipedia puts it: “Higher education is education provided by universities and other institutions that award academic degrees, such as university colleges, and liberal arts colleges.” Higher Education has been a vital part of the education system. Initially at the UG level, it is a highly complex and vast thing, owing to the number of colleges and courses to choose from. Thus everyone gets to go to college. Higher education is not as competitive to get into as it used to be.
Modern Evolution
In the earlier days, even basic education, forget higher education, was a privilege. As time progressed, man was educated and woman oppressed. With more passage of time, woman’s education was also given equal importance. Even a few decades ago, higher education was incomparable to what it has become today. With the evolution of time, education has also evolved, from a privilege to a right
Why Is It A Right?
If we consider the situation today, and analyse it thoroughly, we will discover so many things that tell us that far beyond basic education, we have a right to even higher education. Years ago, he government was stressing on the fact that basic education is a right of every person, irrespective of caste, creed, colour or gender. Once people realised the value of basic education, they immediately took efforts to get their children educated. With basic education complete, the children were left hanging in the air, without adequate qualifications for a good job. There arose the need for higher education. People soon started learning about the importance of higher education and let their children also go on with it. Now, we are in a scenario, where everyone wants to be educated beyond school. Thus, higher education automatically becomes a right for everyone of us.
Indian Education vs. Foreign Education
At the UG level, many find no need to go abroad and study owing to the adequate facilities here, in India. The cost of education abroad also is another factor that prevents the students from pursuing their undergraduate degree abroad. With the quality of education being improved in India, students seem quite content in holding a degree from an Indian University. In fact, studying here is an advantage, students feel, because of cheaper costs, homely environment and closeness to family. Moreover, the syllabus is based on working in an Indian Environment, which most of the people do.
Government’s role
If every one of us today considers higher education to be a basic right, then we would say, that the government plays a major role in causing that impression. It is because the government feels that College education is a right, it has reserved seats in the colleges for under privileged people, who may not be able to afford such a thing even in India. In fact, the government is stressing so much on the need for basic higher education, that it even considered bringing in reservations in prime universities like IIMs and IITs. Then, isn’t Higher education indeed a right?
Conclusion
In conclusion, all that can be said is that in the highly competitive professional world of today, where employers latch on to the highly qualified like the proverbial moths to the light bulb, a basic degree is a minimum qualification that every single individual should hold. The path being Higher Education, none should be denied this basic right.
In ancient times India was known as a center place of knowledge and learning. Students used to come here to quench the thirst of knowledge. Education system of any country should be according to the needs and values of that particular country.
The objectives of higher education are: physical and mental development of a person to develop a feeling of self-confidence and self-independence in person to develop the feeling of moral values and thoughtfulness development of manners, gentleness, equality, co-operation and tolerance to develop the feelings of national integration, respect for all religions, alterness about nature and environment and quest for modern arts etc. people should be given the knowledge of our glorious past and side by side they should be prepared to enhance to-wards the twenty first century. A few years ago, a whiz kid in the World Bank observed that university graduates earn substantially more than others. As a corollary, he postulated, higher education is not a public good the way it was thought to be. He coined the evocative description “inferior good” for higher education. Then, on the principle the beneficiary pays, the World Bank suggested that higher education be priced. The idea has caught on. Pro-market economists liked the principle of pricing education. Socialists too are thrilled. In their lexicon, higher education is monopolized\n by the well to do. Hence they consider any subsidy for higher education is a gift to the rich at the expense of the poor. Harassed governments strapped for cash find the idea attractive. Evidently, this idea has universal appeal. However, it is an important principle that there is no universal principle. In other words, if everybody agrees, there must be something seriously wrong. What is wrong with the idea of treating higher education as a market commodity? There are atleast two, and possibly three flaws. One, it isn’t just the student who benefits from higher education. The employer also benefits, probably a greater extent. In the larger version the society also benefits. How good would a country be without educated people? The poor (and the incompetent, too) benefit when someone becomes a doctor, engineer, a collector, social worker, economist…what not?",1] ); //-->
A few years ago, a whiz kid in the World Bank observed that university graduates earn substantially more than others. As a corollary, he postulated, higher education is not a public good the way it was thought to be. He coined the evocative description “inferior good” for higher education. Then, on the principle the beneficiary pays, the World Bank suggested that higher education be priced.
The idea has caught on. Pro-market economists liked the principle of pricing education. Socialists too are thrilled. In their lexicon, higher education is monopolized by the well to do. Hence they consider any subsidy for higher education is a gift to the rich at the expense of the poor. Harassed governments strapped for cash find the idea attractive.
Evidently, this idea has universal appeal. However, it is an important principle that there is no universal principle. In other words, if everybody agrees, there must be something seriously wrong.
What is wrong with the idea of treating higher education as a market commodity? There are atleast two, and possibly three flaws. One, it isn’t just the student who benefits from higher education. The employer also benefits, probably a greater extent. In the larger version the society also benefits. How good would a country be without educated people? The poor (and the incompetent, too) benefit when someone becomes a doctor, engineer, a collector, social worker, economist…what not? One more drawback of this theory is that “students pay”. The poor will then be left out. As a remedy, loans have been suggested. That sounds well in theory. In practice, what hope is there for the child of, say, a rickshaw puller, to get a loan to study medicine or engineering or whatever professional course is in demand now? even if the loan is given can he ever repay it? Because the cost of professional education keeps going up. Has any institution till day guaranteed that its degree is good enough to fetch, and keep a job for any length of time? Will we ever\n purchase a product that doesn’t have guarantee or that doesn’t even offer a after purchase service? Thirdly, in the market, there is a custom of providing a guarantee for a substantial fraction of product life. For instance, TV sets are available with a guarantee of four years. Does any educational institution guarantee us that its degree can fetch of a job that can be kept for a long length of time? How do we charge a product that offers no guarantee? The next complication is that, our socialist friends want higher education to become universal. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that 50 per cent of the youth should go to the universities. When so many become graduates, how can they earn much more than others? Won’t their wages fall? Already, a plumber in ",1] ); //-->
One more drawback of this theory is that “students pay”. The poor will then be left out. As a remedy, loans have been suggested. That sounds well in theory. In practice, what hope is there for the child of, say, a rickshaw puller, to get a loan to study medicine or engineering or whatever professional course is in demand now? even if the loan is given can he ever repay it? Because the cost of professional education keeps going up.
Has any institution till day guaranteed that its degree is good enough to fetch, and keep a job for any length of time? Will we ever purchase a product that doesn’t have guarantee or that doesn’t even offer a after purchase service?
Thirdly, in the market, there is a custom of providing a guarantee for a substantial fraction of product life. For instance, TV sets are available with a guarantee of four years. Does any educational institution guarantee us that its degree can fetch of a job that can be kept for a long length of time? How do we charge a product that offers no guarantee?
The next complication is that, our socialist friends want higher education to become universal. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that 50 per cent of the youth should go to the universities. When so many become graduates, how can they earn much more than others? Won’t their wages fall? Already, a plumber in Britain earns more than a Ph.D . We need also to enquire whether higher education is necessary for large sections of the population. In the recent past I heard of a post-graduate in Kerala who gave up the position of a scientific assistant in a reputed NGO to become a peon in govt service. This not an isolated instance. Will not the absence of employment that matches higher education cause avoidable pain, and unhappiness? Considering the limited market, should higher education be then treated as a right to be demanded or as a privilege to be earned? Privately funded institutions have performed best in the Us. Few are aware that the average fee in universities like Harvard and Stanford is held within 20 per cent of that in state universities. Reputed private universities have found that (a) their reputation depends entirely on the quality of admissions, and (b) when the fee is pegged too high, bright youngsters go elsewhere. In fact Harvard gives larger subsidy to the average student than state universities do. Hence a wise govt will regulate the average fee charged, not how much is charged in individual cases. Only then will the rich and the not-so-bright students definitely cross-subsidise poor but bright students. ",1] ); //--> Britain earns more than a Ph.D .
We need also to enquire whether higher education is necessary for large sections of the population. In the recent past I heard of a post-graduate in Kerala who gave up the position of a scientific assistant in a reputed NGO to become a peon in govt service. This not an isolated instance. Will not the absence of employment that matches higher education cause avoidable pain, and unhappiness? Considering the limited market, should higher education be then treated as a right to be demanded or as a privilege to be earned?
Privately funded institutions have performed best in the Us. Few are aware that the average fee in universities like Harvard and Stanford is held within 20 per cent of that in state universities. Reputed private universities have found that (a) their reputation depends entirely on the quality of admissions, and (b) when the fee is pegged too high, bright youngsters go elsewhere.
In fact Harvard gives larger subsidy to the average student than state universities do. Hence a wise govt will regulate the average fee charged, not how much is charged in individual cases. Only then will the rich and the not-so-bright students definitely cross-subsidise poor but bright students.
If the youth were classified in two main categories: those who have the intellectual capacity to undergo the rigour of true higher education, and those who do not. The first can be subdivided into 2 sub categories: those who can compete for the limited occupations requiring\n higher education that the economy provides, and those who cannot. Likewise we can divide the less competent youth in 2 categories: those who can pay the cost of higher education and those who cannot. Those who are competent, and can compete for the limited opportunities, are national assets. The state and the employer should reward them, and bear in full the cost of their higher education. Those who are competent, but cannot compete may also be admitted if they so wish, but charged a fee linked to what they paid for their school education, about the best guide of their capacity to\n pay. Those who are rich, and are willing to subsidise the poor may also be admitted in the manner Harvard does. Educating the last category that is neither competent, nor rich enough to pay, is not worth the effort. Educated under/unemployment invariably ends up in political disaster. The consequent psychological cost (and the financial one) is too much to pay. So I conclude saying higher education is neither a privilege nor a right. It’s a necessity and is the order of the day. Educated people are the catalysts that are involved in the development of a nation. Ask the developed nations, I bet they wouldn’t deny even an iota of it. Because educated people are not just capable of making the big difference and getting their company the edge on a big project but can also think advanced ways of creating job opportunities and help develop the nation and bring pride. We have Laxmi Mittal for example. ",1] ); //--> If the youth were classified in two main categories: those who have the intellectual capacity to undergo the rigour of true higher education, and those who do not. The first can be subdivided into 2 sub categories: those who can compete for the limited occupations requiring higher education that the economy provides, and those who cannot. Likewise we can divide the less competent youth in 2 categories: those who can pay the cost of higher education and those who cannot.
Those who are competent, and can compete for the limited opportunities, are national assets. The state and the employer should reward them, and bear in full the cost of their higher education. Those who are competent, but cannot compete may also be admitted if they so wish, but charged a fee linked to what they paid for their school education, about the best guide of their capacity to pay.
Those who are rich, and are willing to subsidise the poor may also be admitted in the manner Harvard does. Educating the last category that is neither competent, nor rich enough to pay, is not worth the effort. Educated under/unemployment invariably ends up in political disaster. The consequent psychological cost (and the financial one) is too much to pay.
So I conclude saying higher education is neither a privilege nor a right. It’s a necessity and is the order of the day. Educated people are the catalysts that are involved in the development of a nation. Ask the developed nations, I bet they wouldn’t deny even an iota of it. Because educated people are not just capable of making the big difference and getting their company the edge on a big project but can also think advanced ways of creating job opportunities and help develop the nation and bring pride. We have Laxmi Mittal for example.
By- J.Gayathri Nayak 1st year B.A.Journalism
Courtesy The WEEK an article written by P.V.Indiresan
Name: Scribblers Home: Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India About Me: We are a set of energetic, budding journalists. Make way as we conquer the world. See my complete profile
