balaji@uscvax.UUCP (Balaji Narasimhan) (03/05/86)
From KAPUR@ge-crd.arpa Tue Mar 4 20:46:05 1986 News Bulletin 3/1/86 General Strike against Price Hikes A one day all India general strike on Febrary 26 against recently announced increases in the prices of essential commodities by Rajiv Gandhi government was largely peaceful. The city of Bombay was reportedly paralyzed by the strike which was organized by oppposition parties and trade unions. Over 7000 people were arrested nationwide. Protestors denounced the government as being "anti-poor and pro-rich." Many newspapers and magazines marked this first nation-wide protest against the Rajiv Gandhi government as the end of the honey-moon between Rajiv and the middle classes. The government said the increases were necessitated to curb oil imports, reduce energy consumption and raise revenue for development programs. The dissidents within Congress(I) itself have used this issue as a way to challenge Rajiv Gandhi and his close circle. According to one columinist, Rajiv Gandhi earlier successfully managed to avert a crisis in his party by calling the meeting of the party executive which passed a resolution demanding a cut in price increases. Punjab situation Punjab Chief Minister Surjit Singh Barnala warned that army rule will be imposed in the state if extremist violence continued. Barnala delivered his warning at a memorial service held on February 21 for a moderate Sikh student leader killed by gunmen in early February. Barnala added that increasing violence in the state could lead to army rule in which popular government could not function. On the same day, another Sikh moderate and his bodyguard were shot dead as they were coming to the same service where Barnala was speaking. The situation in Punjab remained tense as leaders of All India Sikh Students Federation and Damdam Taksal continued to control the Golden Temple. Curfew was imposed in Gurdaspur, Batala, and other cities of Punjab. A procession by Hindu Shiv Sena was cancelled on Feb. 22 following a request by the state government. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee had announced a meeting in Amritsar on March 1 to consider Gurcharan Singh Tohra's resignation. Tohra resigned at the Sarbat Khalsa in the interests of what he termed as Panthic unity. Some news commentaries have accused Tohra of harbouring extremists and agreeing to their conditions in early January to begin kar sewa for the Akal Takhat; these gestures reportedly emboldened the extremists resulting in their finally taking over the Golden Temple complex. The credibility of Barnala government has also damaged because of the center's decision to postpone transfer of Chandigarh to an indefinite date. According to the agreement reached by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and late Akali leader Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, Chandigarh was to be transferred on January 26 to Punjab. Two Convicted in Indira Gandhi murder Win Appeals Two Sikhs, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh, who were convicted earlier by a Delhi Sessions Court, of having conspired to murder Indira Gandhi and sentenced to death, won appeals on February 21. The Delhi High court said that it would have to confirm the death sentences on Gandhi's former bodyguard Balbir Singh and civil employee Kehar Singh before they become effective. Their lawyer told the court that they were shifted to heavily-guarded separate cells, powerful search lights were put on them, they were not allowed to wear shoes and their traditional turbans and they were denied books, newspapers, and writing material. Sri Lanka sets 9 conditions to solve Tamil Crisis Sri Lanka President Junius Jayewardene set on Feb. 20, 9 conditions for resolving the Tamil crisis. He told the opening session of the parliament that Tamils must accept Sri Lanka's constitution and abandon their demands for a separate state. Further, all militants must renounce violence, disband their groups, close training camps and surrender their weapons. Jayewardene said that his government was prepared to reduce security operations in the Tamil areas and lift the 33 month old state of emergency if Tamils agreed to the proposals. He also said that his government was ready to introduce legislations to set up provnicial and district councils on which power could devolve. He however rejected the latest proposals made by the moderate Tamil United Liberation Front. Brain Drain at 70% About 70% of India's brightest science and engineering graduates have reportedly gone to the United States and West European countries in the past 5 years, and this number is increasing. The brain drain was reportedly greater in the areas of software technology, aeronautics and operations research. These were the findings of a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. According to the Dean of Undergraduate Affairs at IIT Delhi, Prof. Ray, "the Indian government must do something to tackle with this problem... We can ask students seeking admission to the IITs to sign a bond to serve the nation for a minimum period of 10 yers. I do not know how far this wil be successful, but there is no harm in trying out a proposal." According to a England-based journal Nature, the ratio of students returning to India after attaining a doctorate degree is only 18%. Over600 students reportedly migrate to the US every year. And, more than 11,000 students have gone to the US, West Germany, France, England, and Sweden for "further research and job opportunities" not available in India. Rajiv's India: Victim of Inner party Bickering According to the syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, his movie Rajiv's India became a pawn in the chess game of two Congress party factions. Andreson added that these two factions were struggling for power and one of them made an issue for political reasons. Rajiv's India was scheduled to be telecast on Doordarshan on Feb. 7 following a screening for the press at the Taj Hotel. It was cancelled at the last moment reportedly at the instructions from Prime Minister's office. It is rumored that a former Indira Gandhi aide, Yashpal Kapoor complained to Rajiv Gandhi that the movie was anti-Indira Gandhi and made him to cancel its telecast despite that the movie was earlier praised by the Information and Broadcasting Minister. Sources: India Now, India Abroad, the New York Times --------
ams@philabs.UUCP (03/08/86)
> According to the Dean of Undergraduate Affairs at > IIT Delhi, Prof. Ray, "the Indian government must > do something to tackle with this problem... We > can ask students seeking admission to the IITs to > sign a bond to serve the nation for a minimum > period of 10 yers. I do not know how far this > wil be successful, but there is no harm in trying > out a proposal." > According to a England-based journal Nature, the > ratio of students returning to India after > attaining a doctorate degree is only 18%. The honorable professor might not have realized that one major reason the IITs are institutes of excellence is the student body at each of them. A restriction like this may mean that over the long term, those bright students will begin looking elsewhere. Living and studying in a foriegn country broadens the mind. People who are thus trained are extremely valuable. I think that the percentage of people that do go back is sufficient repayment for the investment the Indian Govt. puts into each graduate, IIT or otherwise. The Taiwaneese, Greek and Turkish Govt's ask for ?two? years of military service. 10 years of "serve the nation"? Most people would turn to the Indian Institutes of Marketing (I know,..) and to careers in selling soaps, instead of doing technical things. Ali Shaik ..ihnp4!philabs!ams
sanjiva@tesla.UUCP (Sanjiva Prasad) (03/18/86)
Ali Shaikh writes : >Kapur@ge-crd writes : > > According to the Dean of Undergraduate Affairs at > > IIT Delhi, Prof. Ray, "the Indian government must > > do something to tackle with this problem... We > > can ask students seeking admission to the IITs to > > sign a bond to serve the nation for a minimum > > period of 10 yers. I do not know how far this ^^ Whoa ! TEN years ? And what does "serve the nation" mean ? > > According to a England-based journal Nature, the > > ratio of students returning to India after > > attaining a doctorate degree is only 18%. ^^ Pretty low isn't it ? But what about those who return to India after a Master's degree ? And how what are the percentages for IIT students ? A lot of students studying for doctoral degrees are from other universities / colleges. Why shouldn't similar measures be contemplated for them ? Please remember that University education NO MATTER WHERE in India is heavily subsidised by the government ( and hence the country and hence the tax-payer ). I feel that the focus on the IITs is much more for the high profile and the image they have in the public eye that they are centres of excellence ( myth or reality ? ) Ditto for doctors. I feel sick when people talk of lack of commitment on part of doctors considering they get such a shoddy deal back home. ( Need a doc (:-) ) > The honorable professor might not have realized that one major > reason the IITs are institutes of excellence is the student ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ Whatever that means. As for student bodies at them -- not as militant as in other univs, but not drastically different: perhaps the only difference is that they feel they can *do it*, rather than whine. > body at each of them. A restriction like this may mean that > over the long term, those bright students will begin looking elsewhere. ^^^^^^^^^ I want to know how many people join IITs with the express intention of going (coming?) abroad ? Mostly, people are undecided about the future, or so I concluded. Are there any "elsewhere"s worthwhile right now? > Living and studying in a foriegn country broadens the mind. ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No kidding ? But seriously, you'll be surprised how little it really does. In fact, I've been horrified to see people with prejudices ( racial / political / social / etc. ) as thick as a tank's armour while *broadening their minds*. Well, maybe they would have been worse otherwise ! I've seen some people turn from vulgar people to better-off vulgar people ( they are fatter and dress better ). > People who are thus trained are extremely valuable. > > The Taiwaneese, Greek and Turkish Govt's ask for ?two? years > of military service. 10 years of "serve the nation"? Most people ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 10 years of serving the nation is better than 2 years of military service. Amen. Sanjiva.
santosh@cheviot.uucp (Santosh Shrivatava) (03/20/86)
In article <633@epistemi.UUCP> mukesh@epistemi.UUCP (Mukesh Patel) writes: >In article <614@philabs.UUCP> >>> According to the Dean of Undergraduate Affairs at >>> IIT Delhi, Prof. Ray, "the Indian government must >>> do something to tackle with this problem... We >>> can ask students seeking admission to the IITs to >>> sign a bond to serve the nation for a minimum >>> period of 10 years. > >I have no idea by how much the Indian state subsidises these students' >education but surely there can be nothing wrong in a country demanding >that its graduates having taken advantage of the system do their >bit for it. Ali's comment > >>A (10 year) restriction like this may mean that >>over the long term, those bright students will begin looking elsewhere. > >Makes little sense unless he means that Indian student would do their >first degrees abroad. That's fine as long as they are not benefiting >from the state system. But I think he means that these bright young >things would attend OTHER colleges and universities in India. Well >in that case I think they should be obliged in the same manner to >remain in India and contribute to the country's technological and >economical development. > >> Living and studying in a foreign country broadens the mind. > >It also fattens ones bank balance. Let's call a spade a spade. I bet >about 90% of you expats would not mind working in India if only the >pay was comparable to US. > >> People who are thus trained are extremely valuable. > >You got it! That's why the "learned professor" would like to >see you lot stick around in India to do your bit for YOUR country. > >>>........ the ratio of students returning to India after >>> attaining a doctorate degree is only 18%. > >To which Ali responds >> I think that the percentage of people that do go back is sufficient >> repayment for the investment the Indian Govt. puts into each graduate, >> IIT or otherwise. > >So when is your bit of 18% going to go over and repay the Indian >Govt? Perhaps the issue is whether you care enough about India >and its people rather than whether you should repay anything to >the Indian Govt. The Govt, I am sure Ali is well aware, raises the >money from the people with which it then educates a small elite >who more often than not simply packs up and buggers off to foreign >lands because there is no PERSONAL advantages to be gained by >remaining behind once they get their first/second degrees. > >I am surprised that these students fail to notice that in providing them >with the best education and facilities that India can afford the >country as a whole makes sacrifices in other areas such as medical >care and primary education. A lot of politicians and academic >stomach the elitism of further education in India in the hope that >the product of it could be deployed to improve the lot of the >rest of the less fortunate population. > >Instead of which the Indian people get a kick in the balls which >is what remarks like the following add up to. > >> The Taiwaneese, Greek and Turkish Govt's ask for ?two? years >> of military service. 10 years of "serve the nation"? Most people >> would turn to the Indian Institutes of Marketing (I know,..) >> and to careers in selling soaps, instead of doing technical >> things. >> >> Ali Shaik ..ihnp4!philabs!ams > >Maybe selling soap is better than having to justify ones selfishness. > >mukesh patel > >I live and study in Britain. I was born in Uganda of Indian parents >both of whom came from Gujarat. I have visited India twice in my life. >And I am determined to remain and work in Britain after my PhD rather >than go to the states even though the pay here is terrible. Perhaps >Britain (and India) would be a better place if more people took into >account their duty to their fellow citizens. WELL Said Mukesh! I fully agree with you. As an Indian acaademic working in Britain, I frequently receive enquires from Indians for research jobs in Universities. Some of these guys are Very Good. Should I offer them a job? (I some times do have vacancies).I do feel guilty of robbing! I have one person working with me. He is VERY GOOD. If he does return to India after a few years, he will be tremendously useful there. Most Indian academics I have met (mostly in the US) do not seem to be bothered by this fact. I on the other hand do feel guilty of being a party to the brain drain. I have no solution though. Santosh Shrivastava
ams@philabs.UUCP (Ali Shaik) (03/20/86)
>>> can ask students seeking admission to the IITs to >>> sign a bond to serve the nation for a minimum >>> period of 10 years. > things would attend OTHER colleges and universities in India. Well > in that case I think they should be obliged in the same manner to > remain in India and contribute to the country's technological and > economical development. Following up this & an earlier criticism of my posting: Perhaps I used too strong a language in response to the 10 year idea. I wasn't justifying mine or other IIT graduates selfishness- won't get into thoughts about my personal plans here. It seems the 10 year restriction for IIT (or other) graduates would hurt more than it would help. It would lead to (1) Fewer IIT graduates remaining in the technological areas they were trained for and (2) Fewer or *ZERO* faculty and personnel in technical enterprises in India, with the benefit of having had training in technologically advanced countries. Not too many people would want to do their PhDs while in their early thirties. Ali Shaik ..ihnp4!philabs!ams
ajei@magic.UUCP (Ajei S. Gopal) (03/22/86)
In article <633@epistemi.UUCP> > In article <614@philabs.UUCP> > > [IIT Dean wants students to sign a 10 year bond] > >>........ the ratio of students returning to India after > >> attaining a doctorate degree is only 18%. > > To which Ali responds > > I think that the percentage of people that do go back is sufficient > > repayment for the investment the Indian Govt. puts into each graduate, > > IIT or otherwise. > > So when is your bit of 18% going to go over and repay the Indian > Govt? I am not sure what Patel is trying to say. The point was 18% of Indian students who get their doctorates in the US return to India. NOT that 18% OF each student returns. (I am sorry, everything below your left knee has to get on the next plane to Bombay. The rest of you may stay.) > I am surprised that these students fail to notice that in providing them > with the best education and facilities that India can afford the > country as a whole makes sacrifices in other areas such as medical > care and primary education. . > I live and study in Britain. I was born in Uganda of Indian parents > both of whom came from Gujarat. I have visited India twice in my life. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Obviously I may be wrong, given your vast knowlege of India and her people, but it seems to me that if the financial aid that the Indian Govt gives the IITs were spent elsewhere, it wouldnt make too much of a difference in the lifestyle of the average Indian. But it would make it very difficult for a student from a poor household to attend a good school. > A lot of politicians and academic > stomach the elitism of further education in India.. Further education in India is elitist in that the entrance requirements for good engineering and medical schools are very high. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get a decent job without a degree. For instance, one needs a degree in commerce at least, to get a job as a bank teller. Thus, further education is a necessity, not a luxury. > > I live and study in Britain. I was born in Uganda of Indian parents > both of whom came from Gujarat. I have visited India twice in my life. > And I am determined to remain and work in Britain after my PhD rather > than go to the states even though the pay here is terrible. > > mukesh patel Very laudable! Why did your parents leave India? I'll bet it was for economic reasons. Following your line of reasoning, didnt they have a duty to remain in India and contribute to the country's economy in any way they could? After all, they were born there, and although they may or may not have received state subsidised education, they certainly made use of the facilities provided to them as citizens. They used the roads, the busses and so on. (Lets see, you want to go from Bombay to Delhi by bus? Your share of the petrol, wear and tear of the State Transport bus... you owe India 1 hour and 4 mins of your life. Please sign this bond.) The brain drain that affects India and other countries is certainly a problem. The solution does not lie in making emmigration illegal, or by making people sign bonds in order to get an education. It lies in increasing the opportunity for trained people in their own countries. Those of us who have decided to emmigrate, have to live a life of compromise. On the one hand there are financial and professional rewards, and on the other there are family and cultural ties. The scales tip in different directions for different people. However, non-resident Indians (NRIs, in Govt of India terminology), are a valuable resource. They have money (foreign exchange) to invest and a desire to see India do well. They are contributing to the Indian economy - through investments and industrial collaborations. India does and will continue to derive a benefit from the NRI population. (I am not suggesting that all professionals in India leave. I am merely pointing out that if a person does do so, then this cannot be viewed as a complete loss to India.) Also, NRI tend to do a good PR job for India. ajei gopal ajei@bellcore
das@orstcs.UUCP (das) (03/23/86)
/***** orstcs:net.nlang.indi / epistemi!mukesh / 10:02 am Mar 14, 1986*/ > >I live and study in Britain. I was born in Uganda of Indian parents >both of whom came from Gujarat. I have visited India twice in my life. >And I am determined to remain and work in Britain after my PhD rather >than go to the states even though the pay here is terrible. Perhaps >Britain (and India) would be a better place if more people took into >account their duty to their fellow citizens. >/* ---------- */ > We did have a student studying here who had a similar background as your's. My feeling after talking to him (1 year's acquaintance) is that he did not understand India or it's problems at all, nor did he understand Indian students and their problems either. The interesting thing about him was that he used to visit the Black Cultural Center out here, and when we all got into a discussion on discrimination and minorities in USA, he was surprisingly indifferent (????) to the whole affair. Ofcourse he was very active in the local India Association, and never hesitated to invite non-Indians and talk to other exotic people about how great India is, and this and that. To him India was a happy vacation. I find it a bit funny when such people talk about going back and serving India and being Indian etc, etc. I did get along with him as a friend but I have found more friendly people among students from Middle East, and Latin America who have no connection at all with India, other than knowing the fact that it is overpopulated. ----- das@orstcs ...!hp-pcd!orstcs!das