The Demise of Ragging

So that's it huh? No more ragging in our colleges. Life on campus will never be the same. Another great tradition killed because we dont keep our limits. Generations will now grow up without this priceless experience.
 
I favor the Supreme Court decision because ragging has been abused beyond limits. But I still believe we need it in our country. It is the only way to foster mental growth in adolescents. Think about the life of the teens in our schools or junior colleges (11th and 12th). Wake up, study, go to school or college, attend private tuitions, finish homework, study, sleep....Unlike other countries where students work parttime and pay  their tutions, our students are encouraged to focus on studies and that alone. No games, no sports, only studies. These poor beings have no interaction with the society. They move in groups of fellow students, usually of the same caliber. In sum, there's no attention paid to personality development, and consequently there is none.

Ragging builds character. When ragged, students are forced to come out of their shells or comfort zones; they are forced to do things they normally avoid, which is a critical step in mental growth. Ragging helps shed inhibitions and fears and builds confidence. For example, a student develops humility when he is forced to address a senior as 'sir'. This also keeps the 'toppers' down-to-earth by making them realize they are just as normal as the next person. Similarly, when a student is forced to approach a girl with a rose, he overcomes his fear of failure. He realizes that getting rejected or snubbed by a girl is not so bad after all. It doesnt kill you or anything. In fact, he learns how to do it better when has has to do it for himself. Even when a bunch of students are forced to strip down to their undies, although distressing initially, it makes them feel more comfortable with their bodies. For those with a good physique, it builds confidence, and for those without one, it pushes them to start working out. And you cant deny that ragging develops a naughty side in even the most studious and sincere students, without which they will be terrible bores. After the initial terror of ragging subsides, it paves way for great networking opportunities. Imagine the number of people that would not meet if there was no ragging. Surely such acquiantances wil be useful one time or the other.

Banning ragging is not the end. It's the beginning. Educational institutions must now find other effective ways to foster psychological growth in students. There should be more opportunities for students to socialize. And herein lies the rub. Regardless of how many such opportunities are offered, students can pass them up. An introvert would be too shy to attend, a rich student might feel it below his standards, a studious one thinks this is a waste of time and so on. And this is why ragging worked so well: it wasnt optional, it was compulsory. Whether you liked it or not, you had to step forward and follow orders. And I dont think our educational system is anywhere close to finding a safer alternative to ragging.

So now that we've killed ragging, be prepared for a generation of socially challenged and psychologically imbalanced geniuses that will soon pour out of our colleges.

Generation Storm!

I wonder why we grow up thinking we dont need to learn once we pass out of college? Is it our rich tradition of government jobs that involve anything but work? I am appalled that we, for generations, looked at a government job as the ultimate prize in life.

Anyway, the point I am making is that learning starts when you pass out of college and step into the real world. I am not saying formal education is easy. On the contrary, it is getting more difficult and rigorous by the day. The sad part though is that these rigors do not mirror reality. Students are evaluated by their ability to cram mathematical equations, but now how those can be used to solve real-life problems. How many students learning binomial theorem, trigonometry or calculus in class 12 know where they will be used in real life? I certainly didnt and that was one of the reasons I hated math. It was so difficult, and I had no idea where in hell would I need it.

Most business schools adopt a case-study based approach. The professor lectures on a topic for about 15-30 minutes and then discusses a case. For example, a lecture on failed leaders might involve a discussion on India's world cup performance. Students are encouraged to offer their views and counterviews. Of course, for students to make sensible viewpoints they need to know more about the topic than what was covered in the 30-min lecture. And that's precisely why this model works so well: students prepare for a class. And that is unheard of in the traditional model, where even lecturers make up crap on the spot.

Case-studies work on two levels. One, they immediately establish the relevance of a topic by linking it to a real-life situation. And there is no better motivator to learning than a strong relevance. Two, they offer students a chance to participate, or in other words, students learn actively. Further, the discussion gives rise to several interesting and unconventional views, and builds communication skills and confidence among students.

There is nothing new about this model. Like I said, this is the preferred approach in most business schools. And the concepts of relevance and engagement are cornerstones for trainings developed for the workplace. Why then can we not use this model in formal education where it will pay the most dividends? Imagine a generation that grows up learning how trigonometry is used to calculate the angle of flight take off or how magnets store large amounts of data in computers. Such a generation will not only be prepared to handle the real world, they will take it by storm.

When will we see Generation Storm?

The Iraq War

I am not a Bush supporter, nor am I his worst critic. But, my sympathies are strongly with the President in the matter of the Iraq war. Several damning revelations since the start of war, most notably the CIA's intelligence failure, have caused not only Americans but people around the world to question the decision. In fact, the Republican party paid a heavy price in the mid-term elections held in October 2006. With the perfect 20/20 hindsight that we all possess, we can now say the war was a mistake. Even Bush, in the inner recesses of his soul,  must agree.

But, what was it like in 2003? As the President of the most powerful nation on earth, but one that was attacked by terrorists on its own soil, with another rogue nation threatening to wipe you off the face of earth, what are your options? Sit back, relax and wait to see if Saddam makes a move? And if Saddam had nothing to hide, why was he so reluctant to allow UN inspections? Maybe, diplomacy was an option, but I doubt Saddam was interested in assuaging the anxities of the US. He probably relished being a thorn in Bush's posterior. So, I guess Bush decided to err on the side of caution.

Unfortunately for Bush, it turned out Saddam never had any WMDs. Or he somehow got rid of them. I am not familiar with the theory that the sole purpose of the war was to gain control of Iraq's oil resources. I wont comment on it, but I will say this: In this day and age, it is almost impossible to capture a sovereign nation and control its natural resources. Anyway, in my opinion, here's where the US faltered: after attacking Iraq and capturing Saddam, the US forces should have retreated. Bush has no right to use the taxpayer's money to try and establish democracy in Iraq. The US has done its part by liberating millions of Iraqis from the dictatorial rule of Saddam. Too bad if the Iraqis cant make something out of this. If the Iraqis dont have a leader that can unite all the warring factions and provide decisive leadership, then I guess they deserve to be caught in the throes of a civil war.

World's Most Powerless Person

The American President is easily the world’s most powerful person although Osama Bin Laden is giving him a run for his money. But, do you wonder who the world’s most powerless person is? For obvious reasons, I am keeping ordinary citizens like you and me out of this race. And to make the search meaningful, I’ll limit my quest to national leaders, and in that, to people in positions that at least have a semblance of power. This will automatically eliminate choices like the President of India, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Iraq and the likes.

You should have guessed the winner by now. Yes, it’s our dear Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh. I don’t think there’s even a close second. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Singh. On the contrary, I believe he’s the kind of Prime Minster we’ve been desperately searching for. However, a Prime Minster also needs power, and that is where Mr. Singh lacks.

Mr. Singh was not the preferred choice for this position. In fact, he was never in contention until Mr. Sharad Pawar caused a furor over Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin. Mr. Singh has Mr. Pawar to thank as much as Mrs. Gandhi for his elevation as the leader of Republic India. Sadly, Mr. Singh was not chosen for his financial acumen or political wisdom. It was his image of being a soft-liner that won him the job, and on top of that, I don’t think he had any say over who got into his Cabinet. Even with that, if the Congress had secured a majority in Lok Sabha by itself, Mr. Singh would have had control over how his Government is run, despite Mrs. Gandhi holding the remote that is. Now, he has to work his way with the likes of Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, and some of the political allies and supporters of the UPA don’t even belong in the same country. Yes, I refer to the Communist parties. The CPM and CPI have nothing in common with the Congress except their shared hatred of the BJP: Good enough to win an election and form a Government, but hardly sufficient to formulate progressive policies. (It is some consolation that Buddadeb Bhattacharya, Chief Minister of West Bengal, subscribes to a more realistic view of the industrial situation in India.)

So, Mr. Singh finds himself in an unenviable position, where he has the power to sign any law that he wants, but the Congress has tied his hands and the Left keeps hiding the pen.