1. Student loans for the economically weaker sections of society: Full interest subsidy for the moratorium period for loans taken from scheduled banks to study any approved course in any recognized institution in India. This basically translates as an exemption from payment of interest for any loan taken, until one year (usually) after the end of studies. In other words, if I take a loan for pursuing an MBA degree, I don’t pay it back until I get a job, or for one year after the end of my studies (whichever is earlier.)
2. INR 900 crores (INR 9 billion) for education and INR 495 crores (4.9 billion) to set up and upgrade polytechnics.
3. About 9 billion to set-up Central Universities in states that don’t have any.
4. About 20 billion for IITs and NITs of which 4.5 billion is for setting up of new IITs and NITs.

That’s the only information we have about proposed budgetary spending for education in India. This table (PDF link) details the total expenditure by department/ministry. Here is the summary of the department relevant to this post.

As you can see, total expenditure on school education and literacy is around 20,000 crores (200 billion), in 2007-08. It increased to about 260 billion in 2008-09. Total planned expenditure for 2009-10 is around 290 billion. In comparison, spending on higher education has gone up from 62 billion in 2007-08 to around 159 billion in 2009-10. In other words, there has been a 130% increase in total spending on higher education over the last 3 years, compared to a mere 40% for school education and literacy.

Now, there seems to be a basic problem in this spending pattern. Although, in absolute terms, spending on primary education exceeds spending on higher education, it still works out to very less. Consider this, in 2001, roughly 35 percent of India’s billion-strong population was less than 15 years of age. (Source) This is the section of the population that is concerned with primary education. The total number of persons concerned is thus about 350 million. A total expenditure of about 30 billion for 350 million persons is about 85 rupees per person. This amount is negligible by almost all standards. Considering the abnormally high drop-out rates in India, the challenge of achieving total literacy is even higher.

Now, it’s not as if spending on higher education must be cut. However, it is important to remember that primary education is the stepping stone to progress. Unless children go to school and get educated, spending on higher education will be meaningless. Also, subsidizing higher education makes no sense to me. Giving fee concessions for students in universities does not solve the problem. This is especially true with the IITs and NITs. Making credit freely available and encouraging banks to check only the capacity of the student to get a job and pay the money back will go a long way in getting students from underprivileged families into college. It is not important to give free education. It is more important to impart quality education, especially in the tertiary education sector.

Facilitating access to centres of excellence in higher education, especially for economically backward sections of society can be done simply by removing the financial hurdles that exist today. The IITs are a case in point. It is extremely difficult to gain access to any of the IITs. The creation of new IITs and NITs will only solve this problem to a certain extent. It is more important to ensure that the existing IITs and NITs do not lose their relevance and quality in the endeavour to create new ones. In other words, an increase in the number of such institutions must not compromise quality. To ensure this, spending on upgradation and maintenance of infrastructure is essential. What is neither required nor advisable is subsidising the tuition fee, or lowering the entry barrier by relaxing the norms for reserved categories.

Much can be done for higher education within the existing framework. Primary education, on the other hand, requires a complete overhaul. The National Literacy Missions don’t seem to be working too well. The school dropout rates are still alarmingly high, and show no signs of dropping. Female literacy is abysmal, especially in rural areas and in the BIMARU states. Correcting these anomalies require, not just money, but also political will. Sadly, for our government, it seems to be taking a back seat. Catering to the IT and ITeS sectors seem to take priority, with the government going out of its way to provide engineering education and training at the cost of basic literacy programmes.

The need of the hour is to address basic concerns regarding primary education. Ensuring that primary schools exist and function in rural areas (at least one in every village) is essential. Even the one-room schools that do exist suffer from lack of amenities and even teachers. Providing of drinking water, sanitation and a comfortable learning environment will also greatly help. Of these, sanitation is especially important if we want to keep girls in schools at least until they are 14. Many girls drop out of schools due to the complete absence of toilets in the schools. The noon-meal scheme that worked so well in some Indian states needs to be properly implemented, ensuring that the children get a nutritious and well-cooked meal, at least once a day. These measures are already in place. It just requires budgetary allocation, and more importantly, political will to function properly. Whether it will actually happen is the million-dollar question.

I don’t get the point at all. If a woman is free, post-marriage to retain her maiden name, she must be equally free to take on her husband’s name, right? Apparently not. Because, these self-proclaimed feminists say it’s a huge let-down of thousands of women since the 1850s, who have fought for their right to keep their maiden names. But, wait a second! I was under the impression feminism was about choice, the freedom to take a decision and not be asked to explain it to all and sundry. This questioning seriously threatens the idea of feminism as a movement for equality and freedom.

Also, Hanson’s contempt of “mere wives” is so insulting that I cannot ignore it. She says, in her article,

“I’m trying to get over my dislike of her lifestyle, so that I can concentrate on the business of taking your husband’s name when you marry. (…) She’s the last sort of woman you’d expect to opt to take the back seat, yet here she is, giving up her own name like an ordinary little wife.”

Two things jump out at me when I read these lines. One, Hanson has a problem with the person and her lifestyle and not her decision. Two, Rebekah Brooks nee Wade, is just an “ordinary little wife.” I mean, WTF? Why is it so demeaning to be a wife? So what if Rebekah Brooks, after all these years, decides to change her name? Is she any less of a woman, less of a feminist, or less of a media executive because of it? I doubt. Because, whether you change your name or not, you continue to be the same person. Because the name is an identity. If someone is comfortable being Mrs. So-and-so, who are we, or Michele Hanson to question it?

Rebekah Brooks/Wade/Kemp/whatever else she wants to be is an individual. She has every right to decide how she wants to lead her life. No woman should have to be forced to make the popular choice, just because she is a perceived feminist. Also, being feminist does not mean being non-sentimental. Hanson calls Brooks a fluff deep down inside, at the very beginning of the article. Now, being a fluff is insulting? I would love to be called romantic. I may be feminist, equalist or humanist, but I am still a woman. I still love being pampered, taken care of and cherished. Does that make me less of a feminist? I should think not!

Nandini: I think about her and tears well up in my eyes. I have spoken about it before, but somehow can never get everything I feel out on paper. She was a friend, a confidante, even a sister I never had. Not many people understand this, but that’s the complete truth. I only wished she had lived long enough to see me as I am today. If only I could have got one chance…just one chance to tell her how much she meant to me. It still hurts when I realise I will never hear her scream in excitement over the phone again; when I realise that she will never again be there, solid as a rock, next to me when I am in trouble. May her soul rest in peace, in the knowledge that there was someone to whom she meant the world.

Tamanna: Another friend, a confidante too. Her judgement is spot on about most things. Slightly crazy but very loyal: that’s the only way I can describe her. She has never hesitated in telling me I was wrong. She has called me arrogant, difficult, adamant and egoistic, but has still stood by me through the worst times of my life, and hers. Never scared of criticising, she once told me that winning was not everything. She told me that sometimes one needed to lose to be able to understand the true meaning of life. And that is a lesson I have never forgotten. And never will.

Karthik: This is someone I have stood by, rejected, treated like shit, and pushed away. But every time I have really had a problem, he has been there. To listen, to rationalise, to explain and to understand. I sometimes wonder how a man can be so damned patient. I once told him that he never argues. He just listens. And he told me that sometimes, it is more important to listen and understand that to talk and convince. I don’t know if I will ever be able to imbibe that lesson. But I am trying my best.

Pratibha: My closest friend to date, after Nandini. We share practically every little piece of news: from murungakka sambar Amma makes to the latest movie we would like to watch together. She is another person whose judgement is spot on, but only about me. When it comes to herself, she can be the most confused individual in the world. We gel so well that sometimes it seems most natural that we be the best of friends. May this friendship last all our lives…

Sankhya: Now, what do I say? I am jealous of this guy! He is a walking, talking encyclopaedia. He can talk for hours about PG Wodehouse, cricket matches and Asterix and Obelix, all in the same breath and without missing a beat. Talking to him is so bloody taxing on the brain that sometimes I need to take a break and talk about non-intellectual things. I would give anything to be half as intelligent. And I must admit I am a long way off from there. And yes, he is the only person I know who uses the word humbug!!

Sriram: I have known this guy for almost 7 years now, but became a real friend less than 3 months ago. We can talk for hours, about a lot of things: politics, philosophy, theatre, religion, work, love, life…name it and we have talked about it. The one guy I know who is a feminist at heart but vigorously, and with a certain amount of vehemence, rejects that tag. He calls himself a humanist. But, conveniently forgets that feminism is also a kind of humanism. He can be infuriating, irritating, funny and serious, all at the same time. He cares, in a way that is heart-warming. You know he is right, when he decides to advise, even when the advice is too bitter to take. But, ultimately, you also know that’s the best thing to do. Sometimes, I wonder why I took so long to make him a real friend, rather than just an acquaintance. But as they say, better late than never.

Just one more word to all these people. Thanks for being there when I needed you most.

And yes, I am happy to have been born a woman.

• Because I can think and feel for another in a way very few men can,
• Because I can accept the inevitable and yet be strong, even if I don’t seem strong to the outside world,
• Because I know that physical strength is not a measure of mental stability and that I can be emotionally strong even when I am physically vulnerable.

I feel exactly the same way as Indyeah about practically everything she says, but don’t want to repeat them because she says them so much better. I know women who hate being women. Because the power of making a choice is never given to them. Because they could be married off forcibly, raped, kidnapped or forced to abort a beautiful female foetus, all because they are female. But, don’t worry, things will change. This post gives me hope for the future. This post inspires me in a way very few others have done.

I am slowly discovering how lucky I am, to be a woman. I am also discovering that all men are not bastards. I am realizing that men can be feminists too, however vigorously they reject the tag. I am reassured to understand that some men genuinely do care for women, as friends, as daughters, as sisters and as wives. And finally, I am totally thrilled to discover that some men really do believe that women are worth more than the world thinks they are. May their tribe increase!

There are three major criteria of eligibility for a guy: beauty, intelligence and wealth. Now ideally, a guy should possess all three for a girl to choose him. But then, the probability of that happening is infinitesimally minute. The intersection of the three sets can be illustrated like this:

As you can see, the probability of men fulfilling all three criteria is about one in a million. That leaves us with very little choice. To make it mathematically accurate: there are a total of three choices, not counting the eligible bachelor bit.

Scenario 1 - Man is good-looking and rich but hasn’t a gram of brain in him.

In this, you have two options.

Option 1: take the money, have fun, do your thing, but don’t expect him understand the finer nuances of existential philosophy. For that, you have friends.
Option 2: fret and fume that you have a brainless husband, get depressed, and commit suicide.

Scenario 2 – Man is rich and intelligent but not good-looking

Two options again!
Option 1: Tell yourself that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Thank your stars that the man has the brains, the car, the house and the servants to wait on you hand and foot. Enjoy life.
Option 2: fret and fume that you have an ugly husband, get depressed, and commit suicide.

Scenario 3 – Man is intelligent and good-looking, but not rich

Option 1: Live life for what it’s worth. Be happy without the car and the house. Go out for dances and plays (only if you don’t have to pay for the entry), work your ass off for that house, that car and those servants.
Option 2: fret and fume that you have no money, get depressed, and commit suicide.

Now, as you can see, option two rules itself our because of its sheer stupidity. That leaves you with the option of reconciling with fate and living life. But, there is a small problem. I would much rather marry an ugly, poor but intelligent man than marry a stinking rich Greek god with no brains. However, given that intelligent men, in themselves, are such an endangered species, it becomes a bit difficult to decide. As they say, life is not fair!

Disclaimer: This post is inspired by conversations with Sriram and Sankhya and has no reference to any person living or dead. It is all in good humour and I don’t want to handle trolls accusing me of being shallow and a gold-digger.

The colleges in question have banned their students from wearing tight clothes. To quote the Indian Express new item,

“Four leading women’s colleges of Kanpur have banned students from wearing jeans, tight tops besides other tight-fit clothes, sleeveless blouses and high heels on the campus.”

Pray, why? Because wearing jeans and sleeveless tempts men into looking and lusting. As if they don’t lust after women who are modestly dressed. Every woman has faced sexual harassment in some form at some point in her life. What we wear, or how we behave has nothing to do with it. A sixty-year old man once flashed me on the street. I was then 13 years old and was wearing my school uniform. Even then, it’s my responsibility to not provoke sexual harassment? WTF? Yesterday was a case in point. I was out with two male friends at a place I consider a second home. We were talking animatedly about work, and life in general. After about 15 minutes of conversation, I noticed a guy sitting a short distance away, directing his phone’s camera lens at me. I moved away, trying to stay out of the line of sight of the camera. I don’t think it worked. I was getting increasingly uncomfortable and the two guys I was with were oblivious to the reason behind it. Thankfully, the guy saw me looking and moved away. But, this incident made me extremely insecure.

Here I was, in a place I was extrmely comfortable with, with guys I knew very well, and yet I was insecure. I was wearing a salwar kameez. Nothing remotely revealing. Nothing “western or decadent”. Yet, he was trying to capture me on his camera. So, it’s my fault that I was even there? Or was it because I was talking to two men and apparently comfortable with it? Or maybe because I was well-dressed? Or was it because I came across as friendly and hence the guy assumed he could cross the line? Whatever it is, the problem was with him, not with me. Blaming the victim doesn’t help the cause. As IHM points out, boys don’t even realise that they are wrong, seeing as they are never pulled up for their behaviour. They grow up thinking that if they lust after a woman and ogle, it’s the woman’s fault. It’s never their responsibility to behave. It’s the woman’s to ensure they behave by covering up to the maximum. When will this change? Will be ever get principals who pull up the culprits and report them, instead of ordering the girls to come covered up? Will we ever get a police force that takes complaints of sexual harassment seriously and stop questioning the girl and slandering her? Will we ever get a public that’s more sesitive to the issue and recognises its seriousness? I am slowly losing hope. Someone tell me.

Tejaswy’s post is especially infuriating. He (She?) justifies practically every action (or inaction) in Australia, blaming it on stress, tension, loss of jobs, recession…you get the picture. Take this for example.

Indian students come back from jobs late at night and well they are walking back and there is some drunk chap who is drunk and is looking for free cigg or money and well mugs you. I am not supporting the guy who is mugging but this is not racism If you want examples of racism then it would be you not getting a job on the basis of your color. This does not happen in Australia.”

Yeah right! If you get mugged on you way back, it’s probably because you exist rather than because of your skin colour. There is nothing racist about it. Of course not! Australians are not racist. They are very sensitive about racial issues you know? The Symmonds issue must have told you that much. They are sensitive, children!

I am definitely not implying that we Indians are angels. We are most certainly not. We have our flaws, our prejudices and our weaknesses. But that does not mean we deserve crap from the rest of the world. Just because we are not free from prejudice, we are casteist or even racist, we do not deserve to tolerate racism elsewhere. The Indian government and its embassies are famous for their inaction and inability to assist an Indian citizen abroad. But, this time, they have at least taken notice, thanks to the media hype. Let them at least show the diaspora that they are there for us. Don’t berate them for a job well done. It’s stupid to do that.

Finally, regarding the statement that you are not discriminated against because of skin colour. I find that this is completely and totally untrue. Nita, a friend of mine, (a very occasional blogger) living in Australia can vouch for it. Without going into details, I can safely tell you that she has been discriminated against in various situations and even at the workplace on racial grounds. Denying that Australians are, in general racist is one thing. Denying the existence of workplace discrimination on racial grounds is quite another. All we need is some perspective on the issue. Please, let’s not lose it.

1. As MIM says, it doesn’t show a thing about you. Zilch. Zero. You may get an astronomical percentage in your exams, but that doesn’t mean you are intelligent. You may barely touch sixty, and it doesn’t show you are stupid. It merely shows how much you can mug up and vomit during the three hours you are forced to sit in an exam hall.
2. How much you score in an exam, has absolutely nothing to do with what you in life post-school. Your marks should not determine your fate. Unfortunately for us, that’s exactly what it does. A person must be judged on aptitude and not rote memory. Our present educational system puts absolutely no emphasis on creativity, aptitude or intelligence.
3. Marks are not, and can never be, a judge of character. People who score less than average marks are not necessarily inferior to toppers. They deserve no less than those who score high in examinations. I will never understand the air of superiority with which high scorers strut around, especially in academic and scholastic circles.
4. MIM got me started on the whole science vs. humanities debate. Now, I will never shut up. It galls me when people give me looks of derision when I say I am a History graduate. Or when they say that someone with a 50 percent in the final exam can only get a seat in the History department. I am angry that History, Politics, Fine Arts and other social sciences are somehow considered inferior to the natural and physical sciences. I get extremely pissed off when people tell me that any fool can get a degree in the Arts. I feel like telling them to try. I feel like challenging them that it’s impossible to do.

Society plays a major role in influencing a person’s options. While the mind acknowledges this fact and sees the logic behind people sticking to Engineering or Medicine as a career choice, my heart still pleads for sanity sometimes. The problem does not lie with the subjects per se, but with the perception that only people who do Engineering and medicine can be successful. One comment on MIM’s post made me realise this harsh reality. Ultimately, for most people, education is not about acquisition of knowledge. It’s about acquiring a passport to a better life. I beg your pardon. A richer life. Period. Whether you like studying what you study is immaterial. What is important is whether it gets you the moolah. Maybe I am getting a bit cynical. But sadly, that’s the way the world works. I wonder if this attitude will ever change. If we, as a people, as a society and a culture, will ever get around to accepting that other subjects (read the soft options) are as good as the hard sciences. I can only hope it changes by the time my children get to college. At least.

The other day, I got a haircut and bought some great clothes. Today, i went one step further. After extensively analysing the pros and cons getting my nose pierced, I finally went and did it! Now, let me give you a background. This nose piercing business is at least a decade old. I wanted to get it done, first when I was in school, then in college. In school, it was a passing thought, but in college, it became somewhat of an obsession. One fine day, I proudly announced to my mother that I was going to get it done. And to her credit, she supported me in this endeavour. However, the villian of the piece turned out to be my aunt.

While debating the best side to pierce, my aunt said that it was convention to get the right side pierced before marriage and the left after it. Now, may I add here that I was rather adamant in wanting the left nostril pierced. To this, my aunt vehemently objected, emphasizing for added effect that it was against Madhwa protocol to do so before the wedding. Now, if I may say so myself, anything that is deemed to be against Madhwa protocol becomes my personal protocol. So, here I was, adamant that if my nose was ever pierced, it would be the left nostril. My grandmother added to the confusion saying that both her nostrils were pierced before marrriage. So, in the debating process, the actual idea of getting the nose pierced disappeared into oblivion.

Six years hence, in my desire to get an image makeover, I decided this morning to get my nose pierced. My mother, again to be credited, gave her go-ahead. My aunt, trying to confuse again said that it was only Tamilians who pierced their left nostril before marriage. At which point, I decided enough was enough and declared that I was going to get the left nostril pierced, whatever protocol that may follow. If I had to convert to Iyerism for it, so be it!!

So, here I am. With my left nostril pierced. I finally won a six year-old battle to get my nose pierced. Now, I have a nose stud on my left nostril. And yes, I forgot to mention that the stud is in diamond and I am a good six thousand rupees poorer because of it. On second thoughts, maybe I should never have tickled the sleeping dragon. My nose hurts. I never knew there were these many nerves on the damned thing. Everyone tells me the pain will disappear in a day or two. Meanwhile, I keep my fingers crossed hoping I will not contract any infection because of that terrible ordeal I went through for a measly nose stud. Will keep you posted!

I know I put up a post about breaking up that I removed later. Sorry about that. I felt it was way too personal to stay on the blog. So, I took it off. But, I know it still figures on feed readers and in email inboxes. Doesn’t matter. Let it be. Anyway, this was just a hello post. Hopefully, this writer’s block will end soon and I will succeed in putting up a slightly more coherent and meaningful post soon. Until then, see ya!