Criticizing Institutions

Criticizing Institutions

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Aug 2014

Lately, it has become fashionable to criticize institutions and seek 'change'. People, some of whom occupying 'positions of influence' quote examples from history basis their experience and initiate discussions for change. I agree that some of this trend may have been initiated through social media by 'active' individuals, but how many such individuals wield 'position of influence' or have access to government data is anybody's calculation. The people on responsible position taking over the 'fad' signals rise of the era of crony capitalism, where arguments are being put forth basis isolated cases rather than 'data analysis'. We increasingly find ex-officio criticizing erstwhile institutions and some existing 'officials' criticizing political parties with differing view in subtle manner. Such people should come forward to explain reason for current hyper activism since they were never demanding any change earlier. Now all they seem to be offering is examples but no 'data analysis' is actually a pointer to their being suspect rather than panacea for the 'right kind of change'. While airing of views by people is welcome, however it must be assessed and pointed that if they pertain to 'stray cases' or 'systemic failures'. If they are indeed pertaining to systemic failure then a systemic response is required otherwise what is being sought is rectification or fix for an incident. If stats for data are not collected, then the government should be petitioned to gather data and present the case rather then building 'air' to raise support for systemic fix with 'incidents' as examples or arguments. The political wisdom to develop and deploy systemic fix for 'incidents' must be evaluated and exercised with care because this can have long term repercussion including when the current powers that be are no more in government. One should avoid to be seen as singing different tunes in different circumstances as it lowers ones dignity for certain even if it does not have political repercussions as has been the case in India which is devoid of ethical leadership in political front and has to make do with tactical leadership only including at the highest level. The media of course want to make us feel as though we live in a world surrounded by people of wonder and amazement. The author will like to place on record that ordinary junta which includes the author may not have much expertise in evaluating the subject though, which may be sensitive for the kind of 'rather loose' opinion being proffered. However a reason for such activism is being addressed below.

The government seems to be listening to such demands and is in tearing hurry to make changes to recruitment process of certain categories of positions say for example in Higher Judiciary. This is even as no analysis is presented for total number of wrong outcomes vs desired outcomes from this category. We may still have problem where there have been prolonged delays in hearing common people's petitions and simultaneously have a fraction of judgments that may require review due to inherent failure in higher judiciary. The question must be raised if the priorities of the government are rightly placed when a problem is being identified to solve. Why is no rush for solving the capacity problem of Judiciary and why do we only want to address the problem of 'wrong quality' in higher judiciary. I am sure most people will agree that the 'quality problem' in lower judiciary is much more and when coupled with capacity problem; this actually works to damage the image of the institution much more than the 'quality problem' in higher judiciary which has impact on a cross section of disputes only. Still our learned friends are choosing to focus upon the other problem. We also have thousands of disputes of consumer redressal which are never raised to the right forums because of capacity issues with such institution in say disputes with telecom service providers, banking ombudsman, general insurance, real estate businesses, and quality of widget. These institutions do not require much infrastructure or very high degree of expertise which can be a problem to ramp up of capacities. Such ramp up may bring about a 'policy change' in how quality is to be maintained and how distribution must be carried out including fair treatment to customer across industries. However this will not be raked up because of well understood reasons by the eminent and learned friends who will burn mid-night oil for building up political cases against selected 'issues/people/ disputes' or revamping of a selected process.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Institutions, whether they are governmental, educational, or corporate, often serve as the backbones of society, providing structure, stability, and the foundational services that enable communities to function. However, these entities are not immune to criticism, and for good reason. One of the primary areas of concern is their tendency to become overly bureaucratic, where decision-making processes are slow and rigid, often stifling innovation and responsiveness to emerging needs. For instance, in the educational sector, institutions may prioritize administrative efficiency over the quality of teaching, leading to a focus on standardized testing and rote learning rather than fostering critical thinking and creativity. Similarly, in the corporate world, large institutions can prioritize profit over social responsibility, leading to practices that may harm the environment or exploit labor. Governmental institutions, on the other hand, can be criticized for being detached from the citizens they serve, with policies that favor the interests of the elite or corporations over the general public. This can result in a lack of transparency and accountability, eroding public trust and leading to widespread disillusionment. Moreover, the hierarchical nature of many institutions can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, which can perpetuate inequality and limit opportunities for those at the lower rungs of the social ladder. Despite their critical roles, institutions must be held to high standards and continually evaluated to ensure they are serving the public good effectively and ethically.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Criticizing Institutions

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Aug 2014

Lately, it has become fashionable to criticize institutions and seek 'change'. People, some of whom occupying 'positions of influence' quote examples from history basis their experience and initiate discussions for change. I agree that some of this trend may have been initiated through social media by 'active' individuals, but how many such individuals wield 'position of influence' or have access to government data is anybody's calculation. The people on responsible position taking over the 'fad' signals rise of the era of crony capitalism, where arguments are being put forth basis isolated cases rather than 'data analysis'. We increasingly find ex-officio criticizing erstwhile institutions and some existing 'officials' criticizing political parties with differing view in subtle manner. Such people should come forward to explain reason for current hyper activism since they were never demanding any change earlier. Now all they seem to be offering is examples but no 'data analysis' is actually a pointer to their being suspect rather than panacea for the 'right kind of change'. While airing of views by people is welcome, however it must be assessed and pointed that if they pertain to 'stray cases' or 'systemic failures'. If they are indeed pertaining to systemic failure then a systemic response is required otherwise what is being sought is rectification or fix for an incident. If stats for data are not collected, then the government should be petitioned to gather data and present the case rather then building 'air' to raise support for systemic fix with 'incidents' as examples or arguments. The political wisdom to develop and deploy systemic fix for 'incidents' must be evaluated and exercised with care because this can have long term repercussion including when the current powers that be are no more in government. One should avoid to be seen as singing different tunes in different circumstances as it lowers ones dignity for certain even if it does not have political repercussions as has been the case in India which is devoid of ethical leadership in political front and has to make do with tactical leadership only including at the highest level. The media of course want to make us feel as though we live in a world surrounded by people of wonder and amazement. The author will like to place on record that ordinary junta which includes the author may not have much expertise in evaluating the subject though, which may be sensitive for the kind of 'rather loose' opinion being proffered. However a reason for such activism is being addressed below.

The government seems to be listening to such demands and is in tearing hurry to make changes to recruitment process of certain categories of positions say for example in Higher Judiciary. This is even as no analysis is presented for total number of wrong outcomes vs desired outcomes from this category. We may still have problem where there have been prolonged delays in hearing common people's petitions and simultaneously have a fraction of judgments that may require review due to inherent failure in higher judiciary. The question must be raised if the priorities of the government are rightly placed when a problem is being identified to solve. Why is no rush for solving the capacity problem of Judiciary and why do we only want to address the problem of 'wrong quality' in higher judiciary. I am sure most people will agree that the 'quality problem' in lower judiciary is much more and when coupled with capacity problem; this actually works to damage the image of the institution much more than the 'quality problem' in higher judiciary which has impact on a cross section of disputes only. Still our learned friends are choosing to focus upon the other problem. We also have thousands of disputes of consumer redressal which are never raised to the right forums because of capacity issues with such institution in say disputes with telecom service providers, banking ombudsman, general insurance, real estate businesses, and quality of widget. These institutions do not require much infrastructure or very high degree of expertise which can be a problem to ramp up of capacities. Such ramp up may bring about a 'policy change' in how quality is to be maintained and how distribution must be carried out including fair treatment to customer across industries. However this will not be raked up because of well understood reasons by the eminent and learned friends who will burn mid-night oil for building up political cases against selected 'issues/people/ disputes' or revamping of a selected process.

This political article offers a truly insightful and illuminating examination of its subject. The writer's writing style is both sophisticated and direct, demonstrating a deep understanding of political dynamics while ensuring accessibility for a broad audience. Their ability to distill intricate political concepts into understandable prose is a significant strength, showcasing a rare blend of academic rigor and communicative flair. The structure is thoughtfully organized, dissecting the political issue into digestible components and presenting them in a logical sequence that enhances the reader's comprehension of cause and effect. This systematic approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the topic. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the analysis is a hallmark of this piece. The arguments are presented with such precision, and the implications so plainly laid out, that the article becomes an indispensable resource for understanding the complexities of the political arena.