Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Measuring wrong with undefined scales

I laugh at the brains behind some of the TV programs.

One example. A TV channel recently called its audience to rate Rajanikanth, Rahman, Abdul Kalam, Vishwanathan Anand and other two, each belonging to different professions.

Why I laugh?

Abdul Kalam is the President of India. He belongs to the scientific and technological community in India and is rated one of the big shots in science and technology.

Rajanikanth is one of the most popular cinema actors in Tamil. In the movie industry, he is someone talked high about.

Vishwanathan Anand is a great chess player and his main domain is sports, in particular chess. He is certainly the top most in Indian chess.

Now, shall we say Abdul Kalam is better thanVishwanathan Anand or Rajanikanth?

Shall we say Rajanikanth is a class above Abdul Kalam and Vishwanathan Anand?

Those who are capable of thinking quickly realize that there is no single scale to measure the talent/success/achievements of personalities belonging to different professions. So Abdul Kalam can be rated as one of the top in 'scientific community of India' only. Vishwanathan Anand can be rated as the 'best Indian chess player' only.

Now let us move on to a more serious issue.

Some castes claiming 'upper' or 'superiority' tag and other castes accepting 'lower' or 'inferiority' tag is a serious case of measuring everyone with a single scale. The whole idea of 'upper' and 'lower' castes looks stupid because there is no single standard scale defined to measure one's superiority and other's inferiority.

Artisan's caste capable of producing various articles for use in everyday life cannot be called as inferior to farmer's caste and vice-versa. A caste doing well in higher learning cannot be called as superior to a caste doing wealthy business and vice-versa. May be, a shrewd businessman is superior to another businessman who is less skilled in business.

If 'upper' and 'lower' tags are defined based on the scale of economic situation, then there are low caste people among supposedly 'upper' castes. And there are high caste people among supposedly 'lower' castes.

Ending with a story I remembered.

A scholar took a boat to cross a full flowing river. To kill the boredom, scholar asked the boatman if he knew anything about puranas. Boatman said no. Scholar explained in brief about puranas. Boatman was asked again, if he heard anything about vedas? Boatman said no. Little explanation about vedas followed the boatman's answer. Half the way through the river, scholar asked the boatman if he knew how to read and write. No, answered the boatman.

Waves were raising high and the river was showing it's fury. Situation demanded abandonment of the boat. Boatman asked the scholar if he knew swimming. Scholar said no and started fearing for his life. Kind boatman swum and helped the scholar reach the other side of the river.


At 11:28 PM, Blogger naani V.Harohally said...

"whole idea of 'upper' and 'lower' castes looks stupid because there is no single standard scale defined to measure one's superiority and other's inferiority"

whole idea of 'upper' and 'lower' castes does not look stupid because there is a single standard scale defined to measure one's superiority and other's inferiority that is "Birth".

The basis for this Birth to be standard scale for deciding superiority and inferrority is "undeveloped Mind".

At 2:55 AM, Blogger Shivangi said...

Are you talking about 'caste' or 'class'? They are both two very different concepts.

At 9:00 PM, Blogger Ravi said...

i am talking about 'caste'.

At 10:32 PM, Blogger sarathy said...

'Stigma of untouchability' is another standard scale particularly to measure 'inferiority among lower castes.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License

Click here to join PrasthuNet
Click to join PrasthuNet