WikiLeaks accessed by The Hindu (18th March, 2011) showcased that the former President APJ Abdul Kalam informed the then US ambassador David C Mulford that he too had met with the then opposition leader LK Advani to make a shift in his opposition to Indo-US nuclear deal. This news item has casted a shadow upon the integrity of the office of Indian President.
According to the Article 74 of the Indian Constitution the Indian President may act according to the advice given by the council of ministers. The full text of the Article 74 is given below: “Council of Ministers to aid and advise President.—(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice: Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration. (2) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.”
Still the President have some discretionary powers but they all are related to the appointment of Prime Minister when no party have any clear majority, to explore the options of government formation when the ruling government looses majority, to disqualify a member of legislature, returning the advice of council of ministers or a bill passed by the parliament and to pocket veto (the time delaying tactics). Apart from these, anywhere it is stated that the President has discretionary powers and can engage in activities that are independent of the advice of the council of ministers or can engage in any kind of lobbying of sorts.
But the WikiLeaks accessed by The Hindu (18th March, 2011) showcased that the former President APJ Abdul Kalam informed the then US ambassador David C Mulford that he too had met with the then opposition leader LK Advani to make a shift in his opposition to Indo-US nuclear deal. Why should the President APJ Abdul Kalam get worried about the political position taken by the Leader of Opposition? The Leader of Opposition is supposed to reflect and air the views and concerns of general public and he is duty bound for that. The President is also constitutionally duty bound to ensure that all the organs and the various functionaries of the State are performing in a free and fair manner for the success of Indian democracy. The Indian president is not supposed to lobby to change the stand or position of anybody while occupying the real estate of Rashtrapathi Bhavan. And the Indian President is not supposed to divulge anything related to the opinion making process to an ambassador of any nation, let alone the ambassador of United States. But miserably, the former Indian president APJ Abdul Kalam, by forgetting or bypassing all the above mentioned responsibilities and proprieties, engaged in lobbying of sorts and tried to shift the opposition of LK Advani against the Indo US nuclear deal for just to further the interests of the United States. The full text of the news coverage is given at the end. (See also: http://bit.ly/hjYcUa)
If the WikiLeaks accessed by The Hindu are true, it would be a highly unbecoming behavior from a person who occupied such a coveted apex constitutional position. If it is a fact, the alleged opinion making efforts from the former President would denigrate and demean the sanctity of the office of Indian President. The nation already witnessed several instances of politicking from several former Presidents, but the cited politicking from APJ Abdul Kalam is the very first incident that came to the surface in acquiescence to the interests of a foreign nation (United States) and that too by the so called supreme commander of the nation!
The full text of the news coverage is given below:
U.S. plays politics for nuclear deal, woos BJP at cost of UPA coalition
Sarah Hiddleston (The Hindu, 18th March, 2011)
Washington was so keen on a nuclear deal with India that its New Delhi Embassy worked to “put Sonia Gandhi in a box” by wooing the opposition BJP and breaking the coalition with the Left parties, an Embassy cable sent on May 16, 2008, ( 154231, confidential) has revealed.
Ambassador David C. Mulford reported on a “carefully timed” approach to BJP leader L.K. Advani that he made in early May 2008. He urged Advani to “exhibit statesmanship and either back the nuclear deal or withdraw opposition to it”.
In the cable, Mulford also scripted out a rationale that the BJP could use to present its volte-face. The “possible script” included the BJP agreeing that it was a “good” overall deal and that it was “in the larger national interest,” and the possible enactment of the BJP's own Hyde Act if and when it came to power.
A new BJP posture, Mr. Mulford knew, would put the UPA in a spot: “It would … put Sonia Gandhi in a box; if she goes ahead with the deal, her Communist allies would be livid, might pull out of the coalition and possibly not have anything to do with the Congress Party post-election. If she does not go ahead with the deal, she will be seen as having let India down when it faced a crucial choice in order to stay in power for just a few more months. If Sonia goes ahead with the deal, she can call the Communists' bluff secure in the knowledge the BJP is pro-deal.”
It appeared from the cable that Mr. Advani turned down the U.S. advances at this May 8 meeting, though Mulford was later informed by Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon that Advani was “glad he came”. The Ambassador also called upon former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who informed him that “he too had met with Advani to seek a shift in the BJP leader's thinking.”
“Embassy,” an undeterred Mr. Mulford told superiors in Washington, “will keep reaching out to BJP opinion shapers to see if we can provoke a shift in the party that could bring the civil nuclear issue to a head by the end of May.”
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Cover for bed-fellows (Niira Radia tape controversy)
The Hindu, the most respected and reputed newspaper in India (to this author), willy-nilly engaged in an act of providing cover to those editor-cum-shop owners (Barkha Dutt, Group Editor NDTV; Vir Sanghvi Editorial Director, Hindustan Times etc.) of Niira Radia tape controversy. Its editorial (Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010, See at: http://bit.ly/fRywtq)) re-dressed the disgraced media persons in the Niira Radia tape controversy just as “power players” and provided them safe escape at least in the real estate of The Hindu editorial! (See for example an excerpt from the editorial. “……The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests…”) The editorial should have said that the officially intercepted phone conversations were between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians, senior media persons and power players in Delhi.
The editor has every right to express whatever opinion he has but has no right at all to hide facts. It hid the fact that the conversations indeed included senior media persons. After, the media persons included in the conversation were re-dressed and categorized as just power players. Still, he can hide facts since he has the freedom to do that. But then it cannot be argued that he is fulfilling journalist duties and exercising rights of media. That editor who ever he may be, must be reminded that he is also engaging in a ‘lobbying’ of sorts, an activity he vehemently lashed through out in the editorial.
At the same time The Hindu needs to be congratulated for publishing the article of Priscilla Jebaraj, “The spotlight is on the media now” (See at: http://bit.ly/e7jIwH) in the same page where it published the editorial under scrutiny.
So there is a conflicting behavior. In the editorial, disgraced media persons were given a cover, but in the leader page article they were stripped off!
At the end of the day, the curiosity is to know what is the real opinion of The Hindu. Did it want to take a soft approach to their colleagues in other firms and at the very same time want to relay the strong message that they do not want to give a cover for those ‘editor-cum-shop owners’? But please, The Hindu, always remember that the editorial has more gravity!
The full text of the editorial is given below:
No reason to fear JPC
So enormous is the scale of the 2G spectrum scandal and so widely dispersed and influential are the dramatis personae that ordinary instruments of investigation may not be enough to get to the bottom of the affair. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come up with three key findings. First, that the Telecom Ministry under A. Raja deliberately ignored suggestions from other branches of government on the manner in which spectrum was to be allocated to new players in the 2G space. Second, that as a result the exchequer suffered a presumptive loss of anywhere between Rs.60,000 crore and Rs.179,000 crore. And third, that more than the factum or quantum of loss, the real scandal lies in the manner in which the first-come-first-served rules were re-jigged in order to cherry pick some companies for allocation. The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests that the role of a number of industrialists and others also needs investigation. The CBI's handling of the case thus far does not inspire confidence, even if the Supreme Court were to monitor the progress of its investigations more closely. And, although Parliament's Public Accounts Committee normally reviews CAG reports, the sheer complexity of the 2G scandal and the number of official and unofficial players means a more comprehensive examination of the kind a Joint Parliamentary Committee could conduct is warranted.
Given the public's sense of disgust with the scale and extent of corruption, the Congress ought to realise that its objection to a JPC is being seen as a tacit admission of guilt or, at best, a certain unwillingness to allow the guilty to be exposed. The longer the stalemate continues, the more this perception will gain ground. That is why it is essential that the Opposition demand be conceded forthwith so that the probe can begin and Parliament can start functioning again. For over a fortnight now, no legislative business has been conducted in either House, thanks to the JPC gridlock. Disruptions and adjournments in the monsoon session cost over 45 hours of legislative business in the Lok Sabha and as many as eight question hours in the Rajya Sabha. The 15th Lok Sabha had started on a propitious note with the Speaker and the political parties agreeing to work extended hours and also to restore bipartisanship and credibility to an institution increasingly paralysed by political conflict. The United Progressive Alliance government with its stubborn refusal to yield on the JPC must take a larger share of the blame for breaking that consensus.
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
The editor has every right to express whatever opinion he has but has no right at all to hide facts. It hid the fact that the conversations indeed included senior media persons. After, the media persons included in the conversation were re-dressed and categorized as just power players. Still, he can hide facts since he has the freedom to do that. But then it cannot be argued that he is fulfilling journalist duties and exercising rights of media. That editor who ever he may be, must be reminded that he is also engaging in a ‘lobbying’ of sorts, an activity he vehemently lashed through out in the editorial.
At the same time The Hindu needs to be congratulated for publishing the article of Priscilla Jebaraj, “The spotlight is on the media now” (See at: http://bit.ly/e7jIwH) in the same page where it published the editorial under scrutiny.
So there is a conflicting behavior. In the editorial, disgraced media persons were given a cover, but in the leader page article they were stripped off!
At the end of the day, the curiosity is to know what is the real opinion of The Hindu. Did it want to take a soft approach to their colleagues in other firms and at the very same time want to relay the strong message that they do not want to give a cover for those ‘editor-cum-shop owners’? But please, The Hindu, always remember that the editorial has more gravity!
The full text of the editorial is given below:
No reason to fear JPC
So enormous is the scale of the 2G spectrum scandal and so widely dispersed and influential are the dramatis personae that ordinary instruments of investigation may not be enough to get to the bottom of the affair. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come up with three key findings. First, that the Telecom Ministry under A. Raja deliberately ignored suggestions from other branches of government on the manner in which spectrum was to be allocated to new players in the 2G space. Second, that as a result the exchequer suffered a presumptive loss of anywhere between Rs.60,000 crore and Rs.179,000 crore. And third, that more than the factum or quantum of loss, the real scandal lies in the manner in which the first-come-first-served rules were re-jigged in order to cherry pick some companies for allocation. The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests that the role of a number of industrialists and others also needs investigation. The CBI's handling of the case thus far does not inspire confidence, even if the Supreme Court were to monitor the progress of its investigations more closely. And, although Parliament's Public Accounts Committee normally reviews CAG reports, the sheer complexity of the 2G scandal and the number of official and unofficial players means a more comprehensive examination of the kind a Joint Parliamentary Committee could conduct is warranted.
Given the public's sense of disgust with the scale and extent of corruption, the Congress ought to realise that its objection to a JPC is being seen as a tacit admission of guilt or, at best, a certain unwillingness to allow the guilty to be exposed. The longer the stalemate continues, the more this perception will gain ground. That is why it is essential that the Opposition demand be conceded forthwith so that the probe can begin and Parliament can start functioning again. For over a fortnight now, no legislative business has been conducted in either House, thanks to the JPC gridlock. Disruptions and adjournments in the monsoon session cost over 45 hours of legislative business in the Lok Sabha and as many as eight question hours in the Rajya Sabha. The 15th Lok Sabha had started on a propitious note with the Speaker and the political parties agreeing to work extended hours and also to restore bipartisanship and credibility to an institution increasingly paralysed by political conflict. The United Progressive Alliance government with its stubborn refusal to yield on the JPC must take a larger share of the blame for breaking that consensus.
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
Thursday, April 23, 2009
'Star Ideas' for Injustice and the Idea Star Singer 2008: The Katcheri (Classical Music) Round Performance of Somdas and the Mockery of Evaluation
(For Readers' Comments: Click Here)
The Idea Star Singer programme telecasted by the television channel Asianet is touted as the ideal platform for budding and emerging young singers to polish and develop their musical talents and skills. The programme is claimed as a ‘reality show’, its recorded and edited broadcast notwithstanding! The programme managers and the evaluating (judges) persons often proclaim from the roof top that they are adopting a transparent, unbiased and unprejudiced approach in evaluating the performances of the competitors/participants. Nonetheless, in many a situation the ‘show’ showed that it is not at all transparent, unbiased and unprejudiced. Recently also, they aired one episode to underscore this stark, plain truth.
This note is prompted by the subjective evaluation to the hilt made by the nondescript so-called celebrity expert judge Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri and the uncharacteristic remarks uttered by the evaluator named Mr. Sarath and the anchor lady while awarding marks and making remarks for the performance of competitor/participant Mr. Somadas in his—Classical music (Katcheri) round—telecasted on 9th of April, 2009 (8:30pm-09:30 pm slot). The latter lady, whether expressing her own views or resonating her masters’ (programme manager’s) voice, made a scathing remark against Somadas, wherein she attempted to seem that she is consoling Mr. Somadas but patently disgraced and humiliated him in an ‘artful and skilful’ manner. And pontificated in a subtle mode from the roof top of Idea Star Singer 2008 that; viewers—you should not vote through SMSs to Somadas as he rather made a poor performance and not at all a good singer and viewers—you are supposed to cast SMS votes to the singer whom ‘we designate’ as the good or best singer! Dear Asianet, your anchor lady was openly treading through a terrain which was not meant for an anchor lady. Or she naively plodded through the dotted lines under the diktat of top officials of the Asianet like the programme manager etc?
Now dissect the evaluation process.
Evaluation of Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri
After the Kutcheri performance of Somadas, he remarked that the performance was a disappointment and awarded only 3 (three) marks out of 25 (twenty five). Slicing the merit worthiness of his lengthy comments is inconsequential, as he awarded only 3 marks out of 25. Everyone knows that there are two important parameters in Kutcheri or in the rendition of Carnatic music and they are the composition (krithi or keerthana) and the improvisation (including raga, alapana, niraval,kalpana swaras, thanam,pallavi etc.). So the evaluation criteria used (Did he aware of any such objective evaluation criteria?!) for awarding marks must also take into account the presentation of these two parameters. Somdas might have failed (miserably?) in the presentation of its finer details, but the impregnable fact need to be conceded, that he made at least a very basic rendition of Kutcheri. Hence the interrogative is how much marks should be awarded for such a basic level of performance? Three marks amounts only twelve percent of the maximum marks. Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri never could argue that the Kutcheri performance of Somdas was not Kutcheri at all and it was something else. So long as it holds, Somdas deserved at least 35 (thirty five) percent of the maximum marks for his performance or at least 9 marks.
Over all, considering other aspects of his performance he deserved 11-12 marks at least, from the most sceptical and meticulous evaluator. But Sankaran Namboothiri gave only the pittance. Some may argue that the authority of the evaluator in awarding marks should not be questioned but it is only a wrong and naïve notion. Awarding marks is not charity. Objective evaluation criteria should be there and it must be made public at least to the participants and the evaluator indeed has the responsibility to justify his marking scheme with respect to that. Sorry to say that Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri miserably failed in all these respects.
The evaluation on the basis of awarding marks ranging from 0 to 25 implies that the marking is on a ‘continuous scale’. Such a scale requires a high level of expertise and finesse from the part of the evaluator. The evaluation scale implies that the evaluator has to distinguish, when arranged in an ascending or descending order, at least 25 different types of performance gradually inching towards pinnacle of perfection or abyss of rendition. Note that what is needed is not the parading of 25 different types of performance but what is required is, performances, arranged in an ascending or descending order gradually inching towards pinnacle of perfection or abyss of rendition.
Simply put, this distinction of 25 different types of performances is very impossible. It may be possible for a maestro or for a genius but it is beyond the reach of majority. It is worth noting the fact that only when we are able to distinguish 25 different performances, it would be objective and meaningful to give marks like 3, 15, 16, 17 and so on. In the presence of difficulty in making such a fine distinction one cannot claim that this performance deserves only 3 marks or 4 marks and so on. If one evaluator is adamant that this performance deserves only 3 marks, then he has to explain and show which performance deserve 2, 4, 5 marks and so on. Otherwise the awarding of marks cannot be considered as fair, objective and error free.
In the context of the above said difficulty, evaluators generally follow a common sense practice of adding ‘some more’ (1-3 marks) marks to counteract the above said type of error (due to difficulty in making fine distinctions) which arises from the subjectivity inherent in the evaluation based on marks. This practice has been followed with the sole objective of protecting the participant/competitor from any adverse judgement that arises from the flaws of the evaluation process pointed out above. It is to be noted that these additional marks may sometimes exaggerate the evaluation but it ensure that nobody is hurt or thrown into a disadvantageous situation for some other’s fault like the one explained above (in the instant case the fault is of Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri). To sum up, by awarding just three marks for Mr. Somadas, Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri conveyed that he is unwilling to compensate for the error that would creep into his own judgement and thereby made an erroneous evaluation, his apparent scrupulous posture throughout the commentary notwithstanding!
Imperative for Moderation
The theoretical justification of moderation implemented in the process of evaluation need to be punctuated. The element of subjectivity in the evaluation process and the consequent variation in marks awarded by different evaluators requisite a procedure often referred as ‘moderation’ to contend with the variability in marks awarded. Put simply, if there is considerable variation in marks awarded by different evaluators than what is normally expected, that variation is due to some extraneous reason and hence must be dealt with appropriately.
The statistical tool ‘standard deviation’ is used to quantify the variation in marks. Put simply, standard deviation (SD) is a measure of (average) variation in marks given by different evaluators. The SD is computed for all the evaluations and that historical SD is used to compare the SD of each evaluation. If there is any significant difference in SD for a particular evaluation with respect to the historical SD, it would be surmised that there was an extraneous influence in the evaluation process. That extraneous influence must be neutralised through the procedure of ‘moderation’ where in additional marks are given to bring the SD almost equal to the historical SD. The table given below furnishes the numerical example.
It can be seen that the SD ranges between 0.5—1.41 for the evaluations. But the SD for Somdas is four times higher than this and is 6.18. This requisite a correction and if moderation is implemented to bring back the SD from 6.18 to at least 1.49 for lending fairness, addition of at least 9.5 marks is required which would take the total marks to around 59. To wind up, addition of at least 10 marks are required to give Somdas justice and maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process.
Comments of Mr. Sarath and the anchor lady
The prime responsibility of any evaluator is to perform the evaluation helpful to ‘perfect the performance’ in future, by instilling confidence into the competitor/participant. By scrupulously adhering to the evaluation criteria, the evaluator must dissect the performance to describe where it faltered and excelled and the ways through which it could be improved. Eventually, even a pathetic performer would amass confidence and become a star performer as a result of the evaluation. In the instant case, the evaluator Mr. Sarath with his uncharacteristic remarks, virtually discharged the confidence of the low profile yet unassuming and affable Somdas by making him tear publicly. Unacceptable behaviour from anybody, however great he may be, let alone one Mr. Sarath!
The anchor lady, after the performance of Somdas, as pointed out above, disgraced and humiliated Somdas in an ‘artful and skilful’ manner. She told that, it was only because of the audience (ie. with their SMSs) that he scraped through eighteen rounds. What is its implication? It has only one implication that Somdas came to this penultimate round not because of his musical talent and skills but just because of the countless SMSs he got. If this is not humiliation then tell Asianet, what else is this? It must be accentuated that this indiscreet anchor lady with this remarks even downplayed and contradicted the open stance of Asianet. Asianet through out took the stance that SMSs sent by the audience are counted as a proxy of evaluations made by the viewing public. When the anchor lady attempt to downplay, the much valued evaluations of the viewing public as per the official stance of Asianet, she is humiliating her own employer also! She also demeaned musical wizards like Johnson master etc who gave Somdas 23 marks or so with her remark that Somdas scraped through eighteen rounds only because of the SMS support of audience.
Or what that anchor lady was talking—the evaluations of the viewing public through SMSs, solicited under the auspices of Asianet, are just money spinning mechanisms or machinations? Dear Asianet, you owe an explanation.
Before winding up, one heartening aspect need to be highlighted and appreciated. It is the evaluation and the comments made by the evaluator Mr. Venuopal. His remarks were balanced and encouraging yet pointed out the flaws in the performance of Somdas. The single word remark of Ms. Usha Uthup, (“disappointment”) should also be put under the scanner (for judging improvement?!) but well could be ignored as she said only one word!
Hence, to restore credibility and to lend justice and fairness to Somdas, Asianet must make appropriate corrections. The top management of Asianet may not be in the thick of details of the programme. Hence, the top management should take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for the future of the show.
The Idea Star Singer programme telecasted by the television channel Asianet is touted as the ideal platform for budding and emerging young singers to polish and develop their musical talents and skills. The programme is claimed as a ‘reality show’, its recorded and edited broadcast notwithstanding! The programme managers and the evaluating (judges) persons often proclaim from the roof top that they are adopting a transparent, unbiased and unprejudiced approach in evaluating the performances of the competitors/participants. Nonetheless, in many a situation the ‘show’ showed that it is not at all transparent, unbiased and unprejudiced. Recently also, they aired one episode to underscore this stark, plain truth.
This note is prompted by the subjective evaluation to the hilt made by the nondescript so-called celebrity expert judge Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri and the uncharacteristic remarks uttered by the evaluator named Mr. Sarath and the anchor lady while awarding marks and making remarks for the performance of competitor/participant Mr. Somadas in his—Classical music (Katcheri) round—telecasted on 9th of April, 2009 (8:30pm-09:30 pm slot). The latter lady, whether expressing her own views or resonating her masters’ (programme manager’s) voice, made a scathing remark against Somadas, wherein she attempted to seem that she is consoling Mr. Somadas but patently disgraced and humiliated him in an ‘artful and skilful’ manner. And pontificated in a subtle mode from the roof top of Idea Star Singer 2008 that; viewers—you should not vote through SMSs to Somadas as he rather made a poor performance and not at all a good singer and viewers—you are supposed to cast SMS votes to the singer whom ‘we designate’ as the good or best singer! Dear Asianet, your anchor lady was openly treading through a terrain which was not meant for an anchor lady. Or she naively plodded through the dotted lines under the diktat of top officials of the Asianet like the programme manager etc?
Now dissect the evaluation process.
Evaluation of Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri
After the Kutcheri performance of Somadas, he remarked that the performance was a disappointment and awarded only 3 (three) marks out of 25 (twenty five). Slicing the merit worthiness of his lengthy comments is inconsequential, as he awarded only 3 marks out of 25. Everyone knows that there are two important parameters in Kutcheri or in the rendition of Carnatic music and they are the composition (krithi or keerthana) and the improvisation (including raga, alapana, niraval,kalpana swaras, thanam,pallavi etc.). So the evaluation criteria used (Did he aware of any such objective evaluation criteria?!) for awarding marks must also take into account the presentation of these two parameters. Somdas might have failed (miserably?) in the presentation of its finer details, but the impregnable fact need to be conceded, that he made at least a very basic rendition of Kutcheri. Hence the interrogative is how much marks should be awarded for such a basic level of performance? Three marks amounts only twelve percent of the maximum marks. Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri never could argue that the Kutcheri performance of Somdas was not Kutcheri at all and it was something else. So long as it holds, Somdas deserved at least 35 (thirty five) percent of the maximum marks for his performance or at least 9 marks.
Over all, considering other aspects of his performance he deserved 11-12 marks at least, from the most sceptical and meticulous evaluator. But Sankaran Namboothiri gave only the pittance. Some may argue that the authority of the evaluator in awarding marks should not be questioned but it is only a wrong and naïve notion. Awarding marks is not charity. Objective evaluation criteria should be there and it must be made public at least to the participants and the evaluator indeed has the responsibility to justify his marking scheme with respect to that. Sorry to say that Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri miserably failed in all these respects.
The evaluation on the basis of awarding marks ranging from 0 to 25 implies that the marking is on a ‘continuous scale’. Such a scale requires a high level of expertise and finesse from the part of the evaluator. The evaluation scale implies that the evaluator has to distinguish, when arranged in an ascending or descending order, at least 25 different types of performance gradually inching towards pinnacle of perfection or abyss of rendition. Note that what is needed is not the parading of 25 different types of performance but what is required is, performances, arranged in an ascending or descending order gradually inching towards pinnacle of perfection or abyss of rendition.
Simply put, this distinction of 25 different types of performances is very impossible. It may be possible for a maestro or for a genius but it is beyond the reach of majority. It is worth noting the fact that only when we are able to distinguish 25 different performances, it would be objective and meaningful to give marks like 3, 15, 16, 17 and so on. In the presence of difficulty in making such a fine distinction one cannot claim that this performance deserves only 3 marks or 4 marks and so on. If one evaluator is adamant that this performance deserves only 3 marks, then he has to explain and show which performance deserve 2, 4, 5 marks and so on. Otherwise the awarding of marks cannot be considered as fair, objective and error free.
In the context of the above said difficulty, evaluators generally follow a common sense practice of adding ‘some more’ (1-3 marks) marks to counteract the above said type of error (due to difficulty in making fine distinctions) which arises from the subjectivity inherent in the evaluation based on marks. This practice has been followed with the sole objective of protecting the participant/competitor from any adverse judgement that arises from the flaws of the evaluation process pointed out above. It is to be noted that these additional marks may sometimes exaggerate the evaluation but it ensure that nobody is hurt or thrown into a disadvantageous situation for some other’s fault like the one explained above (in the instant case the fault is of Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri). To sum up, by awarding just three marks for Mr. Somadas, Mr. Sankaran Namboothiri conveyed that he is unwilling to compensate for the error that would creep into his own judgement and thereby made an erroneous evaluation, his apparent scrupulous posture throughout the commentary notwithstanding!
Imperative for Moderation
The theoretical justification of moderation implemented in the process of evaluation need to be punctuated. The element of subjectivity in the evaluation process and the consequent variation in marks awarded by different evaluators requisite a procedure often referred as ‘moderation’ to contend with the variability in marks awarded. Put simply, if there is considerable variation in marks awarded by different evaluators than what is normally expected, that variation is due to some extraneous reason and hence must be dealt with appropriately.
The statistical tool ‘standard deviation’ is used to quantify the variation in marks. Put simply, standard deviation (SD) is a measure of (average) variation in marks given by different evaluators. The SD is computed for all the evaluations and that historical SD is used to compare the SD of each evaluation. If there is any significant difference in SD for a particular evaluation with respect to the historical SD, it would be surmised that there was an extraneous influence in the evaluation process. That extraneous influence must be neutralised through the procedure of ‘moderation’ where in additional marks are given to bring the SD almost equal to the historical SD. The table given below furnishes the numerical example.
It can be seen that the SD ranges between 0.5—1.41 for the evaluations. But the SD for Somdas is four times higher than this and is 6.18. This requisite a correction and if moderation is implemented to bring back the SD from 6.18 to at least 1.49 for lending fairness, addition of at least 9.5 marks is required which would take the total marks to around 59. To wind up, addition of at least 10 marks are required to give Somdas justice and maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process.
Comments of Mr. Sarath and the anchor lady
The prime responsibility of any evaluator is to perform the evaluation helpful to ‘perfect the performance’ in future, by instilling confidence into the competitor/participant. By scrupulously adhering to the evaluation criteria, the evaluator must dissect the performance to describe where it faltered and excelled and the ways through which it could be improved. Eventually, even a pathetic performer would amass confidence and become a star performer as a result of the evaluation. In the instant case, the evaluator Mr. Sarath with his uncharacteristic remarks, virtually discharged the confidence of the low profile yet unassuming and affable Somdas by making him tear publicly. Unacceptable behaviour from anybody, however great he may be, let alone one Mr. Sarath!
The anchor lady, after the performance of Somdas, as pointed out above, disgraced and humiliated Somdas in an ‘artful and skilful’ manner. She told that, it was only because of the audience (ie. with their SMSs) that he scraped through eighteen rounds. What is its implication? It has only one implication that Somdas came to this penultimate round not because of his musical talent and skills but just because of the countless SMSs he got. If this is not humiliation then tell Asianet, what else is this? It must be accentuated that this indiscreet anchor lady with this remarks even downplayed and contradicted the open stance of Asianet. Asianet through out took the stance that SMSs sent by the audience are counted as a proxy of evaluations made by the viewing public. When the anchor lady attempt to downplay, the much valued evaluations of the viewing public as per the official stance of Asianet, she is humiliating her own employer also! She also demeaned musical wizards like Johnson master etc who gave Somdas 23 marks or so with her remark that Somdas scraped through eighteen rounds only because of the SMS support of audience.
Or what that anchor lady was talking—the evaluations of the viewing public through SMSs, solicited under the auspices of Asianet, are just money spinning mechanisms or machinations? Dear Asianet, you owe an explanation.
Before winding up, one heartening aspect need to be highlighted and appreciated. It is the evaluation and the comments made by the evaluator Mr. Venuopal. His remarks were balanced and encouraging yet pointed out the flaws in the performance of Somdas. The single word remark of Ms. Usha Uthup, (“disappointment”) should also be put under the scanner (for judging improvement?!) but well could be ignored as she said only one word!
Hence, to restore credibility and to lend justice and fairness to Somdas, Asianet must make appropriate corrections. The top management of Asianet may not be in the thick of details of the programme. Hence, the top management should take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for the future of the show.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Readers' Comments on "Star Ideas" for Injustice and the Idea Star Singer 2008: The Katcheri Round Performance of Somdas and the Mockery of Evaluation
Sankholi said... (on April 27, 2009 5:46 AM at blog titled "Asianet Idea Star Singer: Evaluation Intrigues")
Awesome Review. It is happy to see people like u thinking on such aspects of society. Please make a review on the revenue side of the show if possible .
========================================================
Anonymous said... (April 29, 2009 11:50 PM at blog titled "Asianet Idea Star Singer: Evaluation Intrigues")
Sir, Are you a lecturer? By going through the review, it is felt that you are not at all qualified to be an evaluator. You actually belong to the school of thought run by the education minister 100% marks for all! Your designation, given here suggests that you are a lecturer in the PG dept. of a Govt. College. But there are no separate posts of lecturers for PG courses in Govt. Colleges. If you are an evaluator for PG courses, it is spring time for students. Actually, the celebrity guest gave 03 marks, even though the participant made a mockery of karnatic music!
Dear Friend,
Please note that I did not argue for giving full marks for any body, let alone Mr. Somdas. Nobody can argue that what Somdas performed was not Karnatic Music. It needs to be conceded that he indeed presented at least a very basic performance of Karnatic music. It might not have gone to the heights of the finer details of Karnatic music, true but it was indeed a performance in Karnatic Music. Lastly, I only mentioned that I am a lecturer at a post graduate department.
I am not afraid of critical comments and I respect your freedom to take any stand according to your views.
Santhosh T Varghese
======================================================
Vijay said... (on April 30, 2009 7:51 AM at blog titled "Asianet Idea Star Singer: Evaluation Intrigues")
Well said sir.
From the two seasons I have noticed that,
1) they will bring 1 person from a poor background and they will highlight his poverty, his poor parents, his moderate background etc to increase the TRP ratings, This will continue this till the penultimate round and then they will suddenly realise that he doesn’t know how to sing & wonder how he got thru this far without knowing anything about singing and they will start giving gyan to the voting public as to how you should use their responsibility properly. (I really pity these guys - Sanni & now Somu, I am sure there will be some guy in the next episode as well in the same genre- Asianet really needs them to mint money & for the TRP)
2) There will be one person with disability - Everything same as above except this person will be shown the door a little early. ( the idea is to give lot of opportunities to didi to shed tears - meaning TRP )
3) The best person always never win ( last time it was the S/E ( poor chap he resigned his job for this drama, this time I thought Rahul was better even though my personal favourite was Prashobh )
4) Judges will always compensate with marks to avoid losing the good singers ( whom they think, doesn’t mean that they are always right in their choice of best singers). You should also see how the anchor asks the celebrity guest first for the marks & the actual judges compensating for any so-called errors in the judgement of the celebrity judge. Most cases you will see one guy being awarded 81 marks & other guy being given 75, even though the person who got 75 must have sung better than the first guy. I guess your SD might explain this :)
5) Lack of transparency - Sometimes they say there is a difference of 50 marks & you will need lakhs & lakhs of SMS to compensate.
I mean why don’t they announce 1 Judge vote = x SMS, and why don’t they announce the # of SMS got by somebody at the end of the elimination
6) Lastly - lack of propriety and lack of all its synonyms - politeness, decorum, modesty, good manners, respectability, decency on the part of (barring a teeny weeny number) almost all the judges & especially the anchor
======================================================
Anonymous said... (on April 27, 2009 4:41 PM at blog titled "Facts Unmasked")
I agree 100% with your point of view. There is no transparency in selecting the winner. Renjini (the anchor lady )is trying to promote her favourite contestant. you have noticed she was requesting votes for one of the contestant who done a poor performance in one episode. Whatever be their commend Somdas has got talent .so that will help him to reach heights. Anchor lady should do her job only i.e anchoring not giving commends over the performance of the contestants.
Regards one regular viewer one.
======================================================
Anonymous said... (on May 7, 2009 4:29 PM at blog titled "Facts Unmasked")
Dear Santhosh sir,
You have said absolutely right what was in every genuine viewers mind since the cssical round of Mr.Somadas was aired. It was just clear and fabricated humiliation and indecency shown to a contestant. If Soma Das were in a foreign country, he could sue them for insulting him.(I don't know if this right is practised in India.)Also the anchor lady should not be allowed in a reputed show like this if Asianet gives any value to morality for the least am very ashamed to tell that there was some of her nude pictures posted in Mallu terminal and it shows she is not more than a sex worker. And the grand finale showed that the audience of Thiruvananthapuram gave little support or respect to her. Asianet should open their eyes and be more sensible. And once again I'd like to ask the innocent people of Kerala to wake up and think before sending SMs to your favourites. Better save that money for some in needy.
Awesome Review. It is happy to see people like u thinking on such aspects of society. Please make a review on the revenue side of the show if possible .
========================================================
Anonymous said... (April 29, 2009 11:50 PM at blog titled "Asianet Idea Star Singer: Evaluation Intrigues")
Sir, Are you a lecturer? By going through the review, it is felt that you are not at all qualified to be an evaluator. You actually belong to the school of thought run by the education minister 100% marks for all! Your designation, given here suggests that you are a lecturer in the PG dept. of a Govt. College. But there are no separate posts of lecturers for PG courses in Govt. Colleges. If you are an evaluator for PG courses, it is spring time for students. Actually, the celebrity guest gave 03 marks, even though the participant made a mockery of karnatic music!
Dear Friend,
Please note that I did not argue for giving full marks for any body, let alone Mr. Somdas. Nobody can argue that what Somdas performed was not Karnatic Music. It needs to be conceded that he indeed presented at least a very basic performance of Karnatic music. It might not have gone to the heights of the finer details of Karnatic music, true but it was indeed a performance in Karnatic Music. Lastly, I only mentioned that I am a lecturer at a post graduate department.
I am not afraid of critical comments and I respect your freedom to take any stand according to your views.
Santhosh T Varghese
======================================================
Vijay said... (on April 30, 2009 7:51 AM at blog titled "Asianet Idea Star Singer: Evaluation Intrigues")
Well said sir.
From the two seasons I have noticed that,
1) they will bring 1 person from a poor background and they will highlight his poverty, his poor parents, his moderate background etc to increase the TRP ratings, This will continue this till the penultimate round and then they will suddenly realise that he doesn’t know how to sing & wonder how he got thru this far without knowing anything about singing and they will start giving gyan to the voting public as to how you should use their responsibility properly. (I really pity these guys - Sanni & now Somu, I am sure there will be some guy in the next episode as well in the same genre- Asianet really needs them to mint money & for the TRP)
2) There will be one person with disability - Everything same as above except this person will be shown the door a little early. ( the idea is to give lot of opportunities to didi to shed tears - meaning TRP )
3) The best person always never win ( last time it was the S/E ( poor chap he resigned his job for this drama, this time I thought Rahul was better even though my personal favourite was Prashobh )
4) Judges will always compensate with marks to avoid losing the good singers ( whom they think, doesn’t mean that they are always right in their choice of best singers). You should also see how the anchor asks the celebrity guest first for the marks & the actual judges compensating for any so-called errors in the judgement of the celebrity judge. Most cases you will see one guy being awarded 81 marks & other guy being given 75, even though the person who got 75 must have sung better than the first guy. I guess your SD might explain this :)
5) Lack of transparency - Sometimes they say there is a difference of 50 marks & you will need lakhs & lakhs of SMS to compensate.
I mean why don’t they announce 1 Judge vote = x SMS, and why don’t they announce the # of SMS got by somebody at the end of the elimination
6) Lastly - lack of propriety and lack of all its synonyms - politeness, decorum, modesty, good manners, respectability, decency on the part of (barring a teeny weeny number) almost all the judges & especially the anchor
======================================================
Anonymous said... (on April 27, 2009 4:41 PM at blog titled "Facts Unmasked")
I agree 100% with your point of view. There is no transparency in selecting the winner. Renjini (the anchor lady )is trying to promote her favourite contestant. you have noticed she was requesting votes for one of the contestant who done a poor performance in one episode. Whatever be their commend Somdas has got talent .so that will help him to reach heights. Anchor lady should do her job only i.e anchoring not giving commends over the performance of the contestants.
Regards one regular viewer one.
======================================================
Anonymous said... (on May 7, 2009 4:29 PM at blog titled "Facts Unmasked")
Dear Santhosh sir,
You have said absolutely right what was in every genuine viewers mind since the cssical round of Mr.Somadas was aired. It was just clear and fabricated humiliation and indecency shown to a contestant. If Soma Das were in a foreign country, he could sue them for insulting him.(I don't know if this right is practised in India.)Also the anchor lady should not be allowed in a reputed show like this if Asianet gives any value to morality for the least am very ashamed to tell that there was some of her nude pictures posted in Mallu terminal and it shows she is not more than a sex worker. And the grand finale showed that the audience of Thiruvananthapuram gave little support or respect to her. Asianet should open their eyes and be more sensible. And once again I'd like to ask the innocent people of Kerala to wake up and think before sending SMs to your favourites. Better save that money for some in needy.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Nandan Nilekani's (Infosys CEO) Fishing Expeditions!
Nilekani in an interview (“A chance in 5000 years”, Business line, Life section, 12th of December, 2008, pg 1) says that people are simply angry with nobody else but with politicians. He continues that present day politicians are mere shadows of the colossal figures of Indian polity viz. Nehru, Patel, etc. He points out specific example for this from incidents related to the present terrorist attacks on Mumbai. When Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi offered solatium to the widow of Hemant Karkare, erstwhile chief of ATS Maharashtra, she then and there denied it. Nilekani immediately discovered it as a clear indication of general angry feeling among people against politicians of the nation!
Then came the second example related to the funeral of Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. Sandeep’s father denied Kerala chief minister VS Achudananthan even an entry into his home and also made virulent remarks against VS. Nilekani banked on this incident as earlier and got a sudden enlightenment that it is also a clear indication of general angry feeling among people against politicians!
See the excerpts of the interview
Now dissect these incidents. Mrs Karkare indeed has no antipathy against politicians of the nation. This is the fact. She well received politicians of Maharashtra who came to her home with condolence. She even accepted the invitation of Kerala government and accepted the solatium offered. Then why did she strongly react against Narendra Modi? The answer is very much in the air, if you want to take facts straight. But if you want to distort facts to cater your narrow ends you need a fishing expedition as did by Nilekani. Narendra Modi vehemently attacked Hemant Karkare after he unearthed the conspiracy of Hindu terrorists in the Malegoan bomb blast incident.
It is well known that Modi is a sympathiser of Hindu communalism and fundamentalism. Karkare’s investigations unfolded the ugly face of Hindu terrorism with the Malegoan incident. Naturally these investigations infuriated Modi. It is precisely because of this reason ie.—the virulent criticisms and attacks by Modi on her husband for his impartial yet daring investigations—Mrs. Kavitha Karkare summarily rejected the solatium offered by Modi. So the argument of Nandan Nilekani fails to wash.
Likewise, Mr. Unnikrishanan, father of Major Sandeep also has nothing against politicians. Actually he expected top functionaries of the Kerala govt. for the funeral function. So what Nilekani says is plain untruth, nothing else. Then why did he vent his fury against VS Achudananthan, the Chief Minister of Kerala? Listen what Mr. Unnikrishanan later said.
He had the impression that Mr. VS was visiting his home under some sort of public pressure which surfaced when some Malayalam news papers especially Malayala Manorama sensationalised the absence any one representing Kerala govt. at the funeral function. (Curiously, the same paper kept a sententeious silence rearding the absence of Union defence minister Mr. AK Antony who is also a Keralaite and who was the minister of Major Unnikrishnan, the slain brave warrior! We can ignore that given the political leaning of Malayala Manorama!)
Mr. Unnikrishnan later clarified that Sandeep did not like to do any thing under pressure and so what ever he did and said against Kerala CM were only meant to please the soul of his son Unnikrishan.
The political secretary of VS, the Kerala CM, Mr. KN Balagopal, who is also a politician, visited the home of Unnikrishanan and they received him with all honour. But Nilekani argues that the comments and the virulent attack of Unnikrishnan's father on Kerala CM only shows the disrespect towards politicians.
Regarding the climax, when Mr. VS came to Unnikrishanan’s home, his mind of Unnikrishnan's father went out of control and shouted that I do not want any dog to visit my home. The reason for such a remark has been pointed out earlier. (Mr. Unnikrishnan later clarified that Sandeep did not like to do any thing under pressure and so what ever he did and said against Kerala CM were only meant to please the soul of his son Unnikrishan. He had the impression that Mr. VS was visiting his home under some sort of public pressure which surfaced when some Malayalam news papers especially Malayala Manorama sensationalised the issue)
His shouting was very loud and all persons including crew from all media heard it. Later, the representative of the news channel “Times Now” specifically solicited the reaction of Mr. VS to Mr. Unnikrishanan’s uttering and references to “I do not want any dog to visit my home”, VS simply yet naively replied that unless it was the home of Mr. Sandeep no dog would ever visit the home. It was a direct and naïve reply. But what happened later is an interesting story, indeed, kudos to the sensationalisation efforts of national media both print and electronic! Nobody want to care about what exactly happened and transpired or not at all interested in facts. They all want to take incidents selectively to fit to the story they already have in their mind. They want to cut the leg to the shape of chappal rather than to cut the chappal to the shape of the leg!
So these are the facts and it is well clear now that Kerala CM did nothing to disrepute Major Unnikrishnan's family and also Major Unnikrishnan's family has nothing against Kerala politicians. It all happened in a spontaneous manner and they are only knee-jerk reactions that happened in an emotionally surchared situation.
But Nandan Nilekani want to paint a picture according to his skewed outlook and perspective towards the political process and history of the nation.
Nilekani boasts that he got excellent education (IIT Mumbai) and so he got a break an wanted to see all would get such education. But if this so-called excellent education miserably failed to help Nilekani to see the truth and sift the fact out of the maze, then what is the use of that so-called excellent education?
Renowned philosopher Socrates punctuated that true education is one that cultivated morally excellent people and he held moral excellence to be superior to technical or vocational training! Some education may help to gain jobs with heavy and deep pockets and campus recruitments, but the depth of the pay packet etc. are not at all a yardstick for excellent education, a sacrosanct yardstick to the private business rating agencies of educational institutions notwithstanding!
To sum up, excellent education is one which helps an individual to better comprehend, interpret and analyse the empirical reality through meticulous dissection of facts with scientific temper. Anyway Nilekani cherry picked facts to fit a preconceived story to denigrate politicians and followed suit the catwalk ramp of politician bashing, the fad of some newly emerged CEOs!
So the Suggested Reading Material is:
"A Country is not a Company"-- by Paul Krugman, (Nobel laureate in Economics)
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1996, (Page 40-51)
Read the full text at: http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/company.html
Visit at www.santhoshtv.in
Nilekani in an interview (“A chance in 5000 years”, Business line, Life section, 12th of December, 2008, pg 1) says that people are simply angry with nobody else but with politicians. He continues that present day politicians are mere shadows of the colossal figures of Indian polity viz. Nehru, Patel, etc. He points out specific example for this from incidents related to the present terrorist attacks on Mumbai. When Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi offered solatium to the widow of Hemant Karkare, erstwhile chief of ATS Maharashtra, she then and there denied it. Nilekani immediately discovered it as a clear indication of general angry feeling among people against politicians of the nation!
Then came the second example related to the funeral of Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. Sandeep’s father denied Kerala chief minister VS Achudananthan even an entry into his home and also made virulent remarks against VS. Nilekani banked on this incident as earlier and got a sudden enlightenment that it is also a clear indication of general angry feeling among people against politicians!
See the excerpts of the interview
Now dissect these incidents. Mrs Karkare indeed has no antipathy against politicians of the nation. This is the fact. She well received politicians of Maharashtra who came to her home with condolence. She even accepted the invitation of Kerala government and accepted the solatium offered. Then why did she strongly react against Narendra Modi? The answer is very much in the air, if you want to take facts straight. But if you want to distort facts to cater your narrow ends you need a fishing expedition as did by Nilekani. Narendra Modi vehemently attacked Hemant Karkare after he unearthed the conspiracy of Hindu terrorists in the Malegoan bomb blast incident.
It is well known that Modi is a sympathiser of Hindu communalism and fundamentalism. Karkare’s investigations unfolded the ugly face of Hindu terrorism with the Malegoan incident. Naturally these investigations infuriated Modi. It is precisely because of this reason ie.—the virulent criticisms and attacks by Modi on her husband for his impartial yet daring investigations—Mrs. Kavitha Karkare summarily rejected the solatium offered by Modi. So the argument of Nandan Nilekani fails to wash.
Likewise, Mr. Unnikrishanan, father of Major Sandeep also has nothing against politicians. Actually he expected top functionaries of the Kerala govt. for the funeral function. So what Nilekani says is plain untruth, nothing else. Then why did he vent his fury against VS Achudananthan, the Chief Minister of Kerala? Listen what Mr. Unnikrishanan later said.
He had the impression that Mr. VS was visiting his home under some sort of public pressure which surfaced when some Malayalam news papers especially Malayala Manorama sensationalised the absence any one representing Kerala govt. at the funeral function. (Curiously, the same paper kept a sententeious silence rearding the absence of Union defence minister Mr. AK Antony who is also a Keralaite and who was the minister of Major Unnikrishnan, the slain brave warrior! We can ignore that given the political leaning of Malayala Manorama!)
Mr. Unnikrishnan later clarified that Sandeep did not like to do any thing under pressure and so what ever he did and said against Kerala CM were only meant to please the soul of his son Unnikrishan.
The political secretary of VS, the Kerala CM, Mr. KN Balagopal, who is also a politician, visited the home of Unnikrishanan and they received him with all honour. But Nilekani argues that the comments and the virulent attack of Unnikrishnan's father on Kerala CM only shows the disrespect towards politicians.
Regarding the climax, when Mr. VS came to Unnikrishanan’s home, his mind of Unnikrishnan's father went out of control and shouted that I do not want any dog to visit my home. The reason for such a remark has been pointed out earlier. (Mr. Unnikrishnan later clarified that Sandeep did not like to do any thing under pressure and so what ever he did and said against Kerala CM were only meant to please the soul of his son Unnikrishan. He had the impression that Mr. VS was visiting his home under some sort of public pressure which surfaced when some Malayalam news papers especially Malayala Manorama sensationalised the issue)
His shouting was very loud and all persons including crew from all media heard it. Later, the representative of the news channel “Times Now” specifically solicited the reaction of Mr. VS to Mr. Unnikrishanan’s uttering and references to “I do not want any dog to visit my home”, VS simply yet naively replied that unless it was the home of Mr. Sandeep no dog would ever visit the home. It was a direct and naïve reply. But what happened later is an interesting story, indeed, kudos to the sensationalisation efforts of national media both print and electronic! Nobody want to care about what exactly happened and transpired or not at all interested in facts. They all want to take incidents selectively to fit to the story they already have in their mind. They want to cut the leg to the shape of chappal rather than to cut the chappal to the shape of the leg!
So these are the facts and it is well clear now that Kerala CM did nothing to disrepute Major Unnikrishnan's family and also Major Unnikrishnan's family has nothing against Kerala politicians. It all happened in a spontaneous manner and they are only knee-jerk reactions that happened in an emotionally surchared situation.
But Nandan Nilekani want to paint a picture according to his skewed outlook and perspective towards the political process and history of the nation.
Nilekani boasts that he got excellent education (IIT Mumbai) and so he got a break an wanted to see all would get such education. But if this so-called excellent education miserably failed to help Nilekani to see the truth and sift the fact out of the maze, then what is the use of that so-called excellent education?
Renowned philosopher Socrates punctuated that true education is one that cultivated morally excellent people and he held moral excellence to be superior to technical or vocational training! Some education may help to gain jobs with heavy and deep pockets and campus recruitments, but the depth of the pay packet etc. are not at all a yardstick for excellent education, a sacrosanct yardstick to the private business rating agencies of educational institutions notwithstanding!
To sum up, excellent education is one which helps an individual to better comprehend, interpret and analyse the empirical reality through meticulous dissection of facts with scientific temper. Anyway Nilekani cherry picked facts to fit a preconceived story to denigrate politicians and followed suit the catwalk ramp of politician bashing, the fad of some newly emerged CEOs!
So the Suggested Reading Material is:
"A Country is not a Company"-- by Paul Krugman, (Nobel laureate in Economics)
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1996, (Page 40-51)
Read the full text at: http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/company.html
Visit at www.santhoshtv.in
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Empathising with USA: The Fad of English News Channels
When Al-Qaeda attacked the twin towers of USA on 11-09-2001, President Bush and Colin Powell designated it as “War on America” rather than a terrorist attack of massive nature. Whether the magnitude is massive or not, it is the nature that makes incidents a war or not. They also very well know this. But then how to sensationalise incidents? So they painted it as “War”.
During the mid of 2008 when India signed the Indo-US Nuclear treaty and the parliament gave a confidence vote to Manmohan Sigh, what was echoing from the supporters of the treaty was that we need to empathise with the new America.
Following his master’s voice, the much talked about Indian electronic media—NDTV 24/7 and CNN-IBN while covering the Mumbai terrorist attack on 27-11-2008, they also indiscreetly used the ‘Bush term’—“War on Mumbai”, “War Zone” etc through out their coverage. Empathising with America, Bush and Manmohan Singh—isn’t the thing to be followed in the era of American neo-liberalism?
Sensationalism in its new avatar. No surprise, when TV ratings rule the roost for the advertisement pie. Another market failure, indeed!
Visit at www.santhoshtv.in
Monday, September 8, 2008
Ugly Face of TATAs and Indo-US CEO Forum
After Dow Chemicals took over Union Carbide's global operations in 2001, the former insisted that it should not be dragged into criminal, environmental and financial liabilities for the gas leak incident in Bhopal that led to the death of nearly 20,000 people. Dow Chemicals has consistently maintained that it had "never owned nor operated the (Bhopal) plant" and, therefore, it "has no responsibility for Bhopal".
Dow has been asked by the Indian government to cough up money to clean up the toxic wastes—above and below ground—still present at the factory site.
In May 2005, while responding to a public interest litigation on the issue, the Union ministry of chemicals and fertilisers (MOCF) urged the Madhya Pradesh High Court to order Dow to deposit an initial amount of Rs 100 crore for this purpose.
On November 8, 2006, Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemicals shot off a letter to Ronen Sen (the then Indian Ambassador in USA) pointing out that
at the US-India CEO Forum (Indo-US CEO Forum is chaired by Tata and includes Liveris (CEO of Dow Chemicals) one of the 10 American CEOs handpicked and appointed to the forum by US President George Bush) in New York on 25 October 2006,
the Indian government representatives admitted at the meeting that "Dow is not responsible for Bhopal and will not be pursued by the GoI, hence it will be important to follow through to ensure that concrete, sustained actions are taken that are consistent with these statements".
Less than three weeks after Liveris' letter to Sen, Ratan Tata, Chairman of the so-called most reputed and responsible TATA group, took a seemingly pro-Dow stance. In a letter to Montek, the Tata Group chairman referred to the contents of the Liveris-Sen exchange. He added that the withdrawal of the MOCF court application "is obviously a key aspect and I wanted your assessment as to whether this is possible".
Interestingly, while responding to an application filed by Bhopal's International Campaign for Justice under RTIA, Naseem Ahmad, APIO, Planning Commission, admitted that the Dow chairman had met Montek twice.
This clearly unveils the ugly face of Indian Corporates and the market messiahs like Montek Singh Ahuluwalia. If this is what is done by TATAS the widely acclaimed socially responsible company having high ethical standards, then what would be the practises of the others companies, disturbing to think about.
Based on:
News story published by OUTLOOK Magazine, May 28, 2007
“THE ACID WASH EFFECT”---A government/industry nexus is giving leeway to Dow in the Union Carbide wrangle. Why?
By SHUCHI SRIVASTAVA
Visit at www.santhoshtv.in
Dow has been asked by the Indian government to cough up money to clean up the toxic wastes—above and below ground—still present at the factory site.
In May 2005, while responding to a public interest litigation on the issue, the Union ministry of chemicals and fertilisers (MOCF) urged the Madhya Pradesh High Court to order Dow to deposit an initial amount of Rs 100 crore for this purpose.
On November 8, 2006, Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemicals shot off a letter to Ronen Sen (the then Indian Ambassador in USA) pointing out that
at the US-India CEO Forum (Indo-US CEO Forum is chaired by Tata and includes Liveris (CEO of Dow Chemicals) one of the 10 American CEOs handpicked and appointed to the forum by US President George Bush) in New York on 25 October 2006,
the Indian government representatives admitted at the meeting that "Dow is not responsible for Bhopal and will not be pursued by the GoI, hence it will be important to follow through to ensure that concrete, sustained actions are taken that are consistent with these statements".
Less than three weeks after Liveris' letter to Sen, Ratan Tata, Chairman of the so-called most reputed and responsible TATA group, took a seemingly pro-Dow stance. In a letter to Montek, the Tata Group chairman referred to the contents of the Liveris-Sen exchange. He added that the withdrawal of the MOCF court application "is obviously a key aspect and I wanted your assessment as to whether this is possible".
Interestingly, while responding to an application filed by Bhopal's International Campaign for Justice under RTIA, Naseem Ahmad, APIO, Planning Commission, admitted that the Dow chairman had met Montek twice.
This clearly unveils the ugly face of Indian Corporates and the market messiahs like Montek Singh Ahuluwalia. If this is what is done by TATAS the widely acclaimed socially responsible company having high ethical standards, then what would be the practises of the others companies, disturbing to think about.
Based on:
News story published by OUTLOOK Magazine, May 28, 2007
“THE ACID WASH EFFECT”---A government/industry nexus is giving leeway to Dow in the Union Carbide wrangle. Why?
By SHUCHI SRIVASTAVA
Visit at www.santhoshtv.in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
