Why Do We Suffer?

Money doesn’t bring suffering, stupidity does. Money will bring comfort but it cannot bring joy. Why should comfort and convenience become suffering? We wanted it, so why should what we want become the source of suffering? Affluence is beautiful, if it comes in proportion. If you have enough money in your pocket, you don’t have to worry about working tomorrow. You can close your eyes and meditate if you wish, isn’t it? The man who is working from meal to meal, even if he wants to close his eyes, he cannot. So money is not misery. Stupidity is always misery, whether you are spiritually or economically stupid. So many people go to places of worship everyday. They are talking more about somebody that they saw in the temple than God. Or, in the temple, your footwear goes with somebody else and you curse the whole of creation and the Creator. People coming out of a restaurant have more joy and fulfilment on their faces than people coming out of a temple. What a shame that a dosa can do something more than the divine! So, the question is not about the divine, dosa or affluence. If we handle things improperly, misery will come, that’s all. When money doesn’t stay in pockets, it goes to your head, then misery is sure to come. Money entering your head becomes misery because that’s not its place. We build grand temples, but we don’t have good toilets. This is our problem. We thought everything is up there; and we can neglect the world, so we are paying another kind of price. Somewhere, you need a balance.

Source: Economic Times, 17/01/2019

Preventing student suicides

The rising number of cases must provoke a discussion on how outcomes of education are perceived in India

The end of 2018 brought with it some deeply unsettling cases of student suicides. The deaths of 49 students in Navodaya Vidyalaya schools in the last five years, and of three students preparing for the IIT entrance examinations in Kota in a span of four days, brings the issue of youth suicides to the fore again. More youths are taking their lives due to the fear of failing in examinations, constant flak from teachers, bullying from peers, family pressure and a loss of a sense of a decent future. These cases force us to recognise that youth suicides are ubiquitous, and the educational ecosystem must take the blame for this.

Current scenario

The Kota case is not an aberration. There have been frequent news reports of suicides taking place in coaching centres that train students for medical and engineering entrance examinations. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, between 2014 and 2016, 26,476 students committed suicide in India. Of them, 7,462 committed suicide due to failure in various examinations.

The rising number of these cases provokes a serious discussion on the way in which outcomes of education are perceived in India. The instrumental value of education in India is its potential in generating socio-economic and cultural capital through a promise of decent job opportunities in the future. But the education system has not been successful in generating enough job options. For instance, the International Labour Organisation’s World Employment and Social Outlook Trends Report of 2018 says that in 2019, the job status of nearly 77% of Indian workers would be vulnerable and that 18.9 million people would be unemployed. With their job future being so bleak, students are put under constant pressure to perform. They have failed to learn to enjoy the process of education. Instead, the constant pressure and stress has generated social antipathy and detachment among them. Sociologist Emile Durkheim had famously hypothesised that suicides are a result of not just psychological or emotional factors but social factors as well. With a loss of community and other social bonds, students in schools, colleges and coaching centres end up taking their lives.

Following the reports of suicides in Navodaya Vidyalayas, the National Human Rights Commission sought information from the Ministry of Human Resource Development on whether trained counsellors were present on campus. In the recently concluded winter session of Parliament, the HRD Minister said that an expert committee has been set up to look into the matter. According to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samitis, merely one or two training sessions are included to sensitise the teachers and principals regarding safety and security of the children and to prevent suicidal tendencies. The framework for implementation of the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) recognises the role of guidance and counselling services to students. In 2018, the government approved an integrated school education scheme subsuming the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the RMSA, and Teacher Education from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020. However, without any significant rise in budgetary allocations for education, it is likely that there would be cuts in “non-productive” areas of education such as guidance and counselling.

The way forward

First, stop-gap solutions to setting up expert committees and counsellors in schools have not been able to solve the problem. The deep-rooted causes must be addressed. The government must undertake a comprehensive study on the reasons behind these suicides. Second, the curriculum should be designed in ways that stress the importance of mental exercises and meditation. The Delhi government’s initiative on the ‘Happiness Curriculum’ may be a step in the right direction. Third, with regards to higher education, 12 measures were suggested by the Justice Roopanwal Commission. One of them stressed on making Equal Opportunity Cells with an anti-discrimination officer functional in universities and colleges. Finally, it is high time we seek to reinvent our educational ecosystem in ways that impregnate new meanings, new ideas of living, and renewed possibilities that could transform a life of precarity into a life worth living.

Shahana Munazir is a Delhi-based scholar

Source: The Hindu, 15/01/2019

Science and reason 

The history of science in India must be treated as a serious subject rather than a matter of speculation

Another edition of the Indian Science Congress, another gift to the news cycle. The Congress, which is meant to be a premier forum for scientists to present and discuss their research, has in recent years become the stage for a series of blissfully evidence-free claims about Indian achievements in science through the ages. Added to the list in this year’s edition (January 3-7, in Jalandhar, Punjab), were claims about the existence of stem cell technology, test-tube babies, and fleets of aircraft in ancient India and Sri Lanka. The reaction was reassuringly swift. The organisers distanced themselves from the claims, prominent scientists denounced them, and protest marches were taken out.

We should, however, be asking a more fundamental question. What motivates speakers to say these things? If, as seems plausible in many cases, it is wilful demagoguery or an attempt to curry political favour, it is irresponsible and deplorable. But let us be charitable and assume for a moment that those who make these statements actually believe them. At the very least, it is clear that there exists a sizeable constituency which wants to believe such claims. What does this tell us about our relationship — as Indians — to science and to history?

Rooted in colonialism

A glance at the past confirms that this is a deep-seated anxiety rooted in the experience of being colonised. In his presidential address to the Institution of Engineers (India) in the early 1930s, Jwala Prasad, a top irrigation engineer in the United Provinces, referred to ‘the construction of the famous bridge over the sea at Cape Comorin’ and ‘the cutting of the Gangotri from a wonderful glacier through disinfecting rocks and land by [Rama’s] ancestor Bhagirath, before men knew how to dig a well.’ Prasad’s statements (unsupported as they were) may be read as a defiant assertion at a time when colonial stereotypes of Indians as unscientific were still prevalent. They were also made in the context of a time when Indian engineers were fighting to be recognised as competent members of a profession hitherto dominated by expatriate Britons.

Other Indian scientists went further, undertaking a serious study of the past. Indeed, historians have shown how the colonial encounter prompted among Indian intellectuals a project of ‘revivalism’, a quest to show that Indian traditions were not devoid of rationality, objectivity, and other characteristics of modern science. The pioneering chemist and industrialist P.C. Ray (who presided over the Indian Science Congress in 1920) wrote a two-volume History of Hindu Chemistry (1902, 1908), while the philosopher Brajendranath Seal contributed a study titled The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus (1915). Although they were criticised at the time, both went through the hard slog of examining primary sources and were careful in the conclusions they drew.

Ray studied 14th century texts such as the Rasa prakasha-sudhakara , noting that they were based on experiment and observation. Seal (as quoted by historian David Arnold) cautioned that while the sages of antiquity may have had ideas compatible with the atomic theory of matter, they had depended upon a ‘felicitous intuition [resulting from] intense meditation and guided by intelligent observation’. This was a step removed from the modern scientific method, which relied on sophisticated experiments.

Stop the labels

More than a century later, there is little reason for us Indians to harbour an inferiority complex, and no excuse for tackling it through rash and unfounded claims. Science has never developed exclusively within national boundaries. Recent research speaks of the ‘circulation’ of scientific ideas, practices, instruments and personnel across regions and continents in different periods of history, while acknowledging that there were unequal power relations between those regions. What we often call ‘western’ science builds on the contributions of scientists from all over the world today, and draws upon sources ranging from the ancient Greeks to the West Asian civilisations of a millennium ago. Once we rid ourselves of the need to label science as western or eastern and shake off the obsession with priority (i.e. which society was the first to discover or invent something), we will liberate ourselves to think about the further development, practice, and application of science.

None of this should imply that exploring the history of science in ancient, medieval and non-European contexts is not worthwhile or legitimate. The solution is not to shut our eyes to the past but to engage in careful historical inquiry. This involves an emphasis on primary sources, on learning the relevant languages and preparing critical editions of texts, on peer review, and on viewing the past on its own terms, avoiding the pitfalls of what historians call ‘present-centredness’. It involves working with the insights of archaeologists, epigraphists, Sanskritists, Persianists, and metallurgists. It requires an open mind and a healthy scepticism. Such works have been undertaken, but many more are needed. The history of science, thus far woefully neglected in Indian institutions and university programmes, must be treated as a serious subject rather than a matter of speculation.

As for the Indian Science Congress, a venerable institution, measures are already being discussed to restore to it a sense of gravitas. One hopes they will succeed. For those who make motivated claims not only tarnish the institution’s reputation but also take the focus away from the legitimate efforts of other delegates. A body which has among its past presidents such personages as Ashutosh Mukherjee, M. Visvesvaraya, C.V. Raman, Birbal Sahni and M.S. Swaminathan surely deserves better.

Aparajith Ramnath is a historian of modern science, technology and business. The views expressed are personal

Source: The Hindu, 15/10/2019

India moves up in 2019 global education rankings

Twenty-five Indian institutions figure in the 2019 ranking of top 200 in 43 emerging economic countries – seven more than the number that figured in last year’s table, according to data released by Times Higher Education (THE) on Tuesday.

Twenty-five Indian institutions figure in the 2019 ranking of top 200 in 43 emerging economic countries – seven more than the number that figured in last year’s table, according to data released by Times Higher Education (THE) on Tuesday.

The Times Higher Education Emerging Economies University Rankings shows that the Indian Institute of Science retains the highest spot for India (14th), followed by the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (27th). However, each slips a place this year, mainly due to increased competition.

THE said the 2019 table presents a mixed picture for India, with several new entrants and high risers, alongside several institutions that drop back.

The Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee scales 21 places at 35th, due to improvements in research (volume, income and reputation) and industry income (knowledge transfer).

The Indian Institute of Technology Indore (61st) and the JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research (joint 64th) are the highest new entrants for India this year.

The Savitribai Phule Pune University climbs 87 positions to joint 93rd, alongside the National Autonomous University of Mexico, with a rise in its research score, and a significant rise to its citations (research influence) score, organisers of the ranking said.

Mainland China with 72 institutions remains the most represented country in the annual listing, claiming four of the table’s top five positions.

Ellie Bothwell of THE said: “Indian institutions have immense potential for success – not only on the emerging stage, but globally. But, while progress is clearly being made, other economies that previously lagged behind – such as Egypt and Malaysia – are starting to advance at a much faster rate.

“In this year’s table, India’s institutions perform well in teaching. However they are significantly behind the global average in terms of international outlook. Strengthening this will further elevate the nation’s global reputation for higher education, encourage important research collaborations and help attract international students.”

2019 COUNTRY/REGION TABLE: INDIA

Institution name	2019 ranking	2018 ranking
Indian Institute of Science	14	13
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay	27	26
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee	35	56
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur	=46	49
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	55	=45
Indian Institute of Technology Indore	61	NR
JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research	=64	NR
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi	66	63
Indian Institute of Technology Madras	=75	=70
Savitribai Phule Pune University	=93	180
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune	=109	NR
Tezpur University	116	=99
University of Delhi	=130	=127
Jadavpur University	=130	=117
Banaras Hindu University	=134	201 - 250
Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad	139	NR
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati	140	=114
Amrita University	=141	=195
Panjab University	150	130
Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar	=153	NR

NR indicates not previously ranked
= indicates a joint position

credit: Times Higher Education (THE)

First Published: Jan 15, 2019 22:50 IST

Control Over the Mind

Swami Vivekananda, during his teachings pertaining to Patanjali’s yoga aphorisms, observed as to how to hold our mind in our day-to-day life. Swamiji said friendship, mercy, gladness and indifference, when applied to subjects (or thoughts) that come before us that are good, suffering, prospering and evil, respectively, would pacify our mind. Explanation: when thoughts arise, they should be checked before being acted upon. When the subject is a good one, constructive in nature, we should befriend it, that is, adopt it. When the subject is one of the difficulty of fellow beings, we need to take a merciful stance. If it is a case of prosperity and progress of others, then, instead of getting prejudiced and envious, we should be rather happy. Lastly, when the subject is evil in nature — contrary to the values we need to uphold — we should show indifference towards it; say, touch it not even with the toes of our feet. If our current problems are micro analysed, we may come to realise that we would have failed to ‘hold’ our mind in one or more ways from aforementioned dispositions. In a corporate environment, for example, adopt excellence in work and friendship, be considerate to sufferings of colleagues, be merciful, be comfortable in the midst of progress of co-employees (gladness) with healthy peer pressure, and not be vindictive to colleagues (indifference to evil). If we rein in our mind as advised by Swami Vivekananda, we can help ourselves avoid a lot of pitfalls, and be more peaceful.

Source: Economic Times, 16/01/2019

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Vol. 54, Issue No. 2, 12 Jan, 2019

Editorials

Where Will the 10% Be Employed?

Political Production of Shock Absorbers

Ancient India, Modern Science, and Insecurities

H T Parekh Finance Column

Forbearance over Default - Danger of Misuse

C P Chandrasekhar

Commentary

Muzzling Artistic Liberty and Protesting Anti-conversion Bill in Jharkhand

Sujit Kumar

Remembering Mrinal Sen (1923–2018) - His Life, Work and Legacy

Amitabha Bhattacharya

The Market for Cryptocurrencies - An Ode to F A Hayek

Sarthak Gaurav

Flaws of Insurance-based Healthcare Provision - The Tamil Nadu Healthcare Model

Gayathri Balagopal, M Vijaybaskar

Perspectives

Testing Times - Standardised Testing in Williamsburg, Virginia

Bhavani Seetharaman

Book Reviews

Janne Ka Haq - The Struggle for the Right to Information

Shailesh Gandhi

Indian Lobbying as a Catalyst of US–India Relations

Shailza Singh

Discussion

Solar Irrigation Pumps and India’s Energy–Irrigation Nexus

Shilp Verma, Neha Durga, Tushaar Shah

Special Articles

Burden of Child Malnutrition in India - A View from Parliamentary Constituencies

Akshay Swaminathan, Rockli Kim, Yun Xu, Jeffrey C Blossom, William Joe, R Venkataramanan, Alok Kumar, S V Subramanian

Climate Change and Rural Poverty Levels in India

K N Ninan

Taking Down Cyber Violence - Supreme Court’s Emerging Stance on Online Censorship and Intermediary Liability

Amrita Vasudevan

Postscript

Symbolic Power of Poetry

Sreenath V S

Stree and Its Politics

Samvartha Sahil

Last Lines

Letters

In Solidarity with BEST Workers

Mihir Desai

Unconstitutional Reservation

Sudip Das

Modi, Netaji and Planning

Sabyasachi Chatterjee

From 50 Years Ago

From 50 Years Ago: CAPITAL VIEW

Current Statistics

Current Statistics

How to realize value from digital markets in 2019

Digitalization has rapidly altered the contours of the Indian economy, especially in terms of improved consumer access to goods and services. Tens of millions of new participants have been added to digital markets through the expansion of telecom and internet services in 2018. In the midst of this feverish activity, confusion persists over what constitutes a definitive and durable vision for a digital India— exemplified by debates on why Indian companies struggle to generate value within domestic digital markets.

China has about 15 times as many unicorns—billion-dollar startups—as India does, despite the fact that the Chinese economy is 2.5 times that of India’s in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted to purchasing power parity. Such asymmetry of outcomes reflects in global comparisons too. India has some of the lowest average revenues per user in telecom markets despite some of the highest data consumption volumes in the world, and a tiny subscription market for digital products such as audiovisual services, which is dwarfed by small countries such as Singapore.

Value creation tends to involve innovation in the production of goods and services that people are willing to pay for. Naturally, intellectual property must lie at the heart of this process, finely balanced alongside consumer access. However, a form of “digital socialism” seems to have manifested itself in India’s digital economy discourse as a panacea for the lack of value. This school of thought seems to emphasize a large role for state intervention in redistributing the value created in digital markets, which largely resides in data.

The desire for state intervention is most visible in regulatory consultations on areas such as data protection and licensing of online applications, parts of which focus on treating all data as a public good. Ongoing discussions lack nuance in differentiating between the implications of unrestricted access to government data and private data. China is naturally a source of inspiration for those who evangelise the benefits of stateintervention to actualise what is essentially an over-broad interpretation of the notion of “open data”.

Admittedly, China’s micromanaged margrowth has been nothing short of astonishing. The country accounted for just under 4% of world GDP in 1991 and now accounts for 15%. Mandating data-sharing is not dissimilar to mandated joint ventures in China’s industrial ecosystem. However, both dilute incentives to innovation and lower chances of safeguarding privately held intellectual property. It is important to recall that China appropriated space in the global economy from emerging markets such as India. Conversely, countries with a strong culture for innovation and monetization of intellectual property such as the US have held on to their share. The US has consistently accounted for around 25% of global GDP despite China’s swift rise over the last three decades.

It is likely that if India lowers its focus on incentivizing and safeguarding innovation in favour of creating an unqualified and unfettered open data ecosystem, China will be its biggest beneficiary.

Chinese firms are already dominating India’s digital markets, from devices to online applications. And the modus operandi of China’s digital giants strongly resembles that of its manufacturing giants. China’s industry majors are offloading their excess capacity in India and focusing on extracting incremental value. For instance, Chinese smartphone brands account for a two-third market share in India—and seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of India’s aspirational consumption. Similarly, the imposition of digital socialism will not deter China’s cash-rich online giants from extracting value from India’s digital markets— consonant with its expansionist Belt and Road Initiative.

The fact is that Chinese businesses will willingly acquiesce in over-regulation in return for a captive market. They have had more than a practice run at embracing the notion of state-controlled digital economy. So, how should India prevent Chinese colonisation of its digital markets, and build focus on creating competitive IP-based digital ecosysket tem that delivers both access and value?

Value creation will require a fresh policy mindset in 2019. A point of departure could be to better understand how countries such as the US have retained their economic strength in times of global flux. Part of the answer lies in the correlation between trade and intellectual property (IP). The US accounts for around one-third share of global IP exports—far outpacing China, which does not even figure in the top ten IP exporters despite frenetic patenting activity. While China has understood the need for more IP, its markets remain state-controlled.

Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that innovation-centricity impacts the realization of economic value. In 2018, researchers found that while less than 10% of US manufacturing firms made IP filings, those that did accounted for 90% of its total merchandise exports. The nexus between innovation and competitiveness is universal. A balanced vision for domestic digital markets must therefore reflect the centrality of incentivizing and protecting innovation. And to be clear, this will require active state support in the entire spectrum of innovation, from engendering a culture of research to stronger enforcement of IP.

Source: Mintepaper, 14/01/2019