The recent news about 'EWS' candidates reportedly taking PG medical courses with fees soaring to Rs 1 crore, as reported by The Times of India, truly gives me pause. It's a stark reminder of the chasm that often exists between policy intent and ground reality. I appreciate journalists like IPSingh, whose work for The Times of India brings such critical issues to light, urging us to reflect on systemic breakdowns.
The Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation was conceived with the noble aim of providing opportunities to those genuinely disadvantaged. Yet, when seats meant for the economically weaker are accessed by individuals capable of paying a colossal sum like Rs 1 crore, it fundamentally undermines the very spirit of equality and social justice.
This situation, in many ways, stands in direct opposition to the vision of a 'Low Cost Economy' that I have often championed. I've discussed this extensively, drawing inspiration from Peter H. Diamandis's foresight on declining production costs and the democratization of opportunities. In my blog, "Low Cost Production and AI" and even earlier in "Only Answer: Low-Cost Economy", I emphasized how cost-efficiency should ideally expand access, not restrict it to a privileged few, especially in critical sectors like education. A Rs 1 crore fee for an EWS seat is not just an anomaly; it's a paradox that makes a mockery of affordability and fair access.
Moreover, this issue touches upon the critical need for transparency and robust data verification. I've spent considerable time reflecting on the pervasive nature of data and privacy in our modern world. In my blog, "Supreme may Propose: Technology will Dispose", I recalled Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen's observation that it's becoming "impossible to control what others capture and share." While their context was about personal privacy, the underlying principle of data's ubiquity and the challenge of its ethical management is highly relevant here. If data about financial status and genuine need is not accurately captured, verified, and transparently utilized, such loopholes will continue to be exploited. We need systems that leverage technology not just to collect data, but to ensure its integrity and prevent manipulation for undue advantage.
This is where I recall Geeta Vora's profound insights on "The Slight Edge" 2010 MANTRA 7 The Slight Edge 2. The 'slight edge' can work for you or against you. In this scenario, it feels as though the system's slight imperfections are being leveraged against the very individuals it was designed to uplift. It undermines public trust and creates an environment where merit and genuine need are overshadowed by wealth.
My earlier thoughts about how technology, particularly AI, could be harnessed for societal good – whether in improving efficiency or making information more accessible – feel particularly urgent now. Imagine a system where AI-driven analytics could flag discrepancies in EWS applications, ensuring that only genuinely eligible candidates benefit. This isn't about invading privacy indiscriminately, but about creating intelligent frameworks that protect the integrity of welfare policies and ensure resources reach their intended beneficiaries.
We must demand systems that are not only well-intentioned but also impervious to such blatant exploitation. The future of equitable access to education and opportunity depends on it.
Regards, Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment