400 MPs under 40: Why Young, Independent Candidates Deserve Your Vote(s)....

In a democratic society, the power to choose our representatives through voting is a fundamental right. As responsible citizens, we must exercise this right carefully and consider the long-term impact our choices will have on our nation's future. In recent times, it has become apparent that there is a significant age gap between the majority of voters and the elected politicians. Let us analyze the importance of supporting younger candidates, preferably independent ones, whose ages are closer to the voter demographic, and why doing so can bring fresh perspectives, innovation, and a stronger representation of our interests.

1.   Representing the Voice of the Majority:

The age group of 18 to 31 constitutes a significant portion of the population, and their concerns, aspirations, and priorities deserve strong representation in the political landscape. Younger candidates are more likely to understand and empathize with the challenges faced by their fellow youth, whether it be education, employment, or social issues. By electing candidates closer to the age of  the majority of voters, we can ensure our concerns are given due attention and that our voices are effectively represented.

2.   Embracing Change and Innovation:

The world is rapidly evolving, with technological advancements and social shifts occurring at an unprecedented pace. Younger candidates are more likely to be in tune with these changes, as they have grown up in an era of rapid technological progress. Their unique perspectives and innovative ideas can help resolve many of the challenges of the modern world, foster economic growth, and create opportunities for the younger generation. By supporting younger candidates, voters will invite the infusion of new ideas, creative problem-solving, and adaptability into our political systems.

3.   Independence from Party Influence:

Political parties often have their own agendas and established hierarchies, mostly made up of geriatric people, that can limit the autonomy of individual political thinking. Supporting independent candidates allows voters to break free from the constraints of partisan politics and focus on electing representatives who prioritize the interests of their constituents over party loyalty. Independent candidates can bring a broader range of perspectives, as they are not bound by party platforms and can work towards finding common ground across different ideologies. This non-partisan approach fosters a more inclusive and collaborative political environment.

4.   Bridge the Generation Gap:

By electing younger candidates, voters can bridge the generation gap that often exists between the elected representatives and the majority of voters. This can lead to improved communication, understanding, and cooperation between different age groups. By electing representatives who are closer in age to the majority of voters, we can promote inter-generational dialogue and ensure that the concerns of all age groups are taken into account when making important decisions that shape our society.

Let’s compare the advantages and disadvantages of voting for young political candidates:

Advantages:

1.   Fresh Perspectives: Young political candidates often bring fresh perspectives and new ideas to the table. They have grown up in a different era and can offer innovative solutions to address the challenges of today's world.

2.   Relevance to Voter Concerns: Younger candidates are more likely to understand and prioritize the concerns and aspirations of their fellow youth. They can advocate for issues such as education, employment opportunities, and social issues that directly impact younger generations.

3.   Technological Proficiency: Growing up in a technologically advanced era, young candidates are generally more adept at using and leveraging technology for governance and public participation. This can lead to more effective and efficient governance, and better engagement with constituents through digital platforms.

4.   Long-Term Vision: Young candidates have a longer potential tenure in public office, which enables them to focus on long-term policies and planning. They may be more invested in shaping the future, as they have a longer stake in the consequences of their decisions.

Disadvantages:

1.   Limited Experience: Young candidates may lack the experience and depth of knowledge that comes with years of political involvement. They may face a learning curve when it comes to navigating complex political systems and dealing with the intricacies of governance.

2.   Lack of Network and Support: Young candidates often have limited political networks and may struggle to garner support from established political structures and interest groups. Building alliances and coalitions can be challenging, which may hinder their ability to enact change.

3.   Perception of Inexperience: Some voters may perceive young candidates as lacking the necessary qualifications and readiness to hold public office. This perception can be a barrier to their electoral success, particularly if they are running against more seasoned and politically cunning opponents.

4.   Overemphasis on Youth Issues: While it is important to address the concerns of young voters, an exclusive focus on youth issues could potentially neglect the broader range of challenges faced by other age groups. Balancing the interests of different demographics is crucial for effective governance.

It is important to note that these advantages and disadvantages are not absolute, and individual candidates will vary in their qualities and capabilities. Evaluating candidates based on their specific merits, qualifications, and policy positions is essential when making an informed voting decision.

In the next general election, young voters must consider voting for candidates whose ages are closer to their own. By supporting younger, independent candidates, voters can empower themselves to shape the future that they desire. Young elected representatives will ensure that their concerns are heard, their ideas are accepted, and their aspirations are fulfilled. Together, the voters can bridge the age gap, foster innovation, and build a more inclusive democracy that works for everyone, regardless of their age. It is time to make our voices heard by supporting young and independent candidates in the upcoming election.

Remember: If we can vote 400 young candidates to the Parliament in the next general election, we will change everything in our nation, and for the better. 

400 over 40 should be the voters goal.

                                                                 Pic courtesy: EU forum

 

 

 

Temples of Doom: Foreign Universities in India!

 On 5^th January of this year, the UGC (university grants commission) announced the draft regulations for ‘setting up and operating campuses of foreign higher educational institutions in India’, in pursuant to the New education policy [NEP] 2020; whereby such (foreign) universities will be given the freedom to decide their governance and content norms on par with autonomous institutions of India.

This basically seems to indicate that foreign universities will have the freedom to devise their own curriculum and admission process. The draft resolution states that fees have to be ‘reasonable and transparent’, which is rather ambiguous and open to any interpretation. The other parts of this draft deals with annual reports, maintaining accounts and most importantly, empowering the UGC to inspect, regulate, interpret and also terminate the permissions of foreign universities to operate in India.

This entire proposal is based on a series of self-delusional thought processes by the bureaucrats of the UCC.

Firstly, education in India is the cash-cow of politicians who own and operate private institutions and universities without having to bother with the quality of education delivered or the skill sets mastered by the graduating students of such ‘temples of learning’. Beyond that, political interference is a regular feature in government run educational institutions. Does the UGC really expect that politicians will not only allow better standards of competition against their business of education, but that they will not interfere in the functioning of the foreign universities? The very premise of freedom to operate in India has already been negated by the UGC itself by self-empowerment of the UGC “to inspect, regulate, interpret and also terminate the permissions of foreign universities to operate in India.”

The next issue that the UGC has failed to clarify is their policy towards reasonable and transparent fees. As per this draft policy, foreign universities are required to set-up world class physical facilities in India, which means a heavy investment in land acquisition and construction. Land values in India are unjustifiably high due to faulty land policy and political corruption. The lengthy, complicated and expensive ‘approval process’ for construction has been designed to ensure that land supply remains constrained and prices remain high. The other factor is ‘greasing the wheels’ of government officials at every stage. European and American laws prohibit their citizens from indulging in corruption and they can be severely punished when malfeasance is discovered. A recent example is the EU Vice-President who was removed from office and arrested for corruption. Does the UGC really believe that foreign universities will indulge in corruption, just because it’s our bureaucratic culture? Taking everything into account, and the expectations of foreign universities for a quick RoI (return on investment), the fees the students will be expected to pay might be prohibitive for the majority of Indian students.

How about the issue on reservations and quota? Foreign universities are unlikely to compromise on the quality of their student intake or offer discounts in their fee structure. In January 2019, the Narendra Modi government amended the Constitution of India to ensure 10% reservation in admissions to the economically backward among upper castes (in addition to the other reservation categories already in existence for the backward castes and minorities), and announced that these reservations will be extended to private universities as well as public ones. With deep discounting in the fees by government mandate, private universities will have to basically write-off fees from the reserved seats, thereby affecting their financial income negatively. Will the UGC make this policy mandatory for the foreign universities they are inviting into India?

Another point that will become contentious is that English language will be the preferred language of delivery of curriculum in foreign owned universities. This will create agitation among local politicians who will protest that the imposition of English would give it enhanced importance and revert society to the yesteryear of the British raj.    

The cultural impact of foreign universities being allowed to operate in India is a dangerous proposition. Racism against Indians is prevalent in various US academic institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, while the universities of Berkeley, Emory, Toronto, Goettingen, and the University of Illinois; had no hesitation in sponsoring and promoting the conference on “Dismantling Global Hindutva” that had been announced from 10-12 September 2021. This politically prejudiced campaign was promoted as an ‘academic event’, and was reportedly co-sponsored by over 50 American universities, including Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Northwestern University and New York University. Rutgers University regularly sponsors and pays the anti-India activist Audrey Truschke for her systematic attacks on the culture of India, while Prof Meena Dhanda of Wolverhampton University has openly called for the annihilation of Brahmins of India, and the university has supported this view by refusing to take any disciplinary action against her. Has the UGC bureaucrats taken into consideration, this anti- India hatred that is prevalent in foreign universities, before proposing the draft regulations for ‘Setting up and operating campuses of foreign higher educational institutions in India’?

The other most important aspect is the reason that certain sections of Indian students take admissions in universities abroad, is migration and settlement in foreign countries. These students are either from rich families or their families take huge loans just for the singular purpose of settling their children abroad for, as per their view, a better and richer lifestyle. Why will students consider studying in foreign university campuses in India, if it does not fulfill the critical requirement of migrating and settling abroad?

Finally, India should be the leader in international education by increasing the standards through our own resources and becoming a global higher education destination with our own capabilities, rather than off-loading this important responsibility onto foreign universities.

Disclaimer: This article is a 100% human effort and has not been generated using artificial intelligence! 

 

Why "Reservations" are fatal to our society and our Country...

 

What is India's “reservation” system? It’s a war against a small number of performing and talented people by un-performing and unqualified majority.

The concept called 'Reservation' (which literally means, specific sections of society should be entitled to a minimum number of positions in an institution regardless of how poorly qualified for that position) in India's various institutions and departments; is the biggest problem restricting India’s growth in any sector. There should nothing called reservation - be it based on caste, sex, economics or any other differentiation.

Admissions to institutions should be based on performance standards & merit, just as success in real life is based on pure performance. Life requires competition, inspiration and motivation.

Just as there are no ‘reservations’ for Olympic medals (I have not yet heard that 33% of Gold medals will be reserved for those who belong to certain caste / tribe/ religion/ poverty level) or that Silver & Bronze medals will be reserved for “sub-castes” within these categories; then why should we need ‘reservations’ in our educational institutes or Government departments?  

‘Reservation’ in it’s very concept, is illogical and unsustainable, but it is also a crime against talented & hard working people. By giving the undeserved a place in any field, this policy denies opportunity to the success of a deserving candidate. Whenever the Government reserves specific portions in an institution or department, it kills the hopes & aspirations of those deserving people who can get access to better education or do a better job, and whose life is destroyed by denying him/her a place even though they deserve it.

Reservation based on any criteria - caste, creed, background, economy, sex... denies a good performer the opportunity that they have worked hard to attain. The ‘Reservation’ policy unjustly punishes a deserving candidate for the act of good performance.

Whatever may have been the genesis of the “Reservation” policy; it is no longer required for a strong country. The ‘Reservations” policy is today meant solely for the survival of the political parties that use & abuse this concept for the creation of ‘vote banks’ and to consolidate power.

The real effect of “reservation” is the polarization of Society on the basis of Caste & creed; leading to segregation in social life, increased strife due to frustrations in various segments of society and the lack of growth of our Nation (as one single entity).