In previous posts, I've bemoaned the state of the Indian judicial system. Bribery is widespread, cases languish for decades, and the backlog of cases is so huge that it would take 350 years to clear the backlog at the current rate, even if no new cases entered the system. While there are many problems with the system itself, I can't help feeling that the quality of the judicial system depends primarily on the quality of judges.
And the quality of judges, especially in the lower judiciary, leaves much to be desired.
The problem is in the selection process for Indian judges. The selection of all judges is overseen by the state government bureaucracies (as opposed to bureaucrats in India who are selected through a tough, unbiased process that is overseen by the federal government). This is also in contrast to the US federal judicial system, where every judge must be approved by the legislative branch of the federal government.
There are two ways of becoming a judge in India - neither very fair. Any practicing lawyer in a state can become a judge if he or she is selected by a committee of the state's supreme court justices. That, needless to say, is rife with favoritism.
The other process is to clear an examination overseen by the state government bureaucracy. The examination process looks rigorous - candidates must first clear a preliminary written examination, followed by a more thorough written examination (called the "mains") followed by an in-person interview with a panel of interviewers. This is similar to the process used to select bureaucrats in India. The difference is that the examination for bureacrats is administered by the federal government, and is widely considered unbiased. The examination for judges, on the other hand, is administered by the state government, and is very corrupt.
It is not uncommon for the interview-panel to ask for money in the interview stage (In the northern state of Punjab, such a bribery scandal was unmasked in 2002 and judicial appointments for the preceding two years were annulled). The candidate's score on the interview is often based on the amount of the bribe, or the amount of influence the candidate has. It is not unheard of for children of judges to obtain a law degree from a third-rate law-school and then clear the judicial examination with ease.
The quality of judges has a ripple effect on the legal system. Meritoriously selected judges would hold themselves and those around themselves to a higher standard. For example, the success of attorneys in India is largely dependent on their personal relationship with judges - a practice that flourishes because incompetent and unprofessional judges promote it. Meritoriously selected judges would discourage such practices.
India needs to raise the quality of judges entering the judiciary - Indians deserve a better deal than the bribery, corruption and delay the current judicial system dishes out.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Public school systems and Local communities
In some parts of rural India, there's apparently a saying that goes: "Send a boy to school for five years, and he'll leave farming - send a boy to school for ten years, and he'll leave the village". Some communities actually feel that schools and education alienate young people from their communities.
In a country like India, where there are numerous local languages, myriad cultures and customs - the idea of one rigid educational curriculum does not fly. Teachers and educational curriculums must be sensitive to local communities and their needs. In India, there are actually grassroot movements looking to address this tension - Vikramshila is one such effort in eastern India.
This may seem obvious in the context of India, but I think many of the same themes play out in the US too. The struggle to have religious prayer in US schools is an aspect of exactly this theme. Local communities want to have a say in how schools educate their children. When the public school system refuses to acknowledge this - there is a conflict.
The only way to resolve this tension is to give schools more autonomy in certain dimensions, and also provide them with the tools and training to allow them to adapt correctly to local communities.
In a country like India, where there are numerous local languages, myriad cultures and customs - the idea of one rigid educational curriculum does not fly. Teachers and educational curriculums must be sensitive to local communities and their needs. In India, there are actually grassroot movements looking to address this tension - Vikramshila is one such effort in eastern India.
This may seem obvious in the context of India, but I think many of the same themes play out in the US too. The struggle to have religious prayer in US schools is an aspect of exactly this theme. Local communities want to have a say in how schools educate their children. When the public school system refuses to acknowledge this - there is a conflict.
The only way to resolve this tension is to give schools more autonomy in certain dimensions, and also provide them with the tools and training to allow them to adapt correctly to local communities.
In Defense of a Public School System
I attended a fund-raiser for an Indian charity organization today, and heard two shocking statistics:
In India, children are preferred as domestic help. Since domestic help often lives in the employer's household around the clock, children are preferred because they are less likely to commit crime, and it's safer to employ them. I know many people in India who employ children as domestic help - and they indeed treat them well. They argue that they're giving a child a better life - the child would have possibly starved otherwise, or turned towards more dangerous ways of earning a living. Even the parents of the children would agree with this assessment.
But there's a vicious circle at work here. By denying that child an education, this child will grow up with limited earning potential, at the bottom rung of society. When that child ends up having children of his own - he will be faced with the same cruel choice - to force his children to work so that they can survive.
I see this as a failure of the state to provide a low-cost, high-quality education system. This was not always so. India had a decent government school system a few decades back. But then, there was an explosion of private schools (possibly because the government did not expand the number of public schools fast enough to cope with increased demand). Students from middle-class and affluent families who could afford these schools moved to the private schools. Since these were also the students who did well - the pool of students in government schools detiorated - and that led to a flight of good teachers from government schools.
India still has a government-run school system - but no one cares about it anymore. The middle-class sends its children to the private schools. The poor cannot afford these private schools - and yet, the government schools do not prepare their children to move up in the world. The government in turn, does not have the will to fix the crumbling infrastructure and lack of resources in public schools - after all, a significant portion of the voting public doesn't even care about these schools.
And that's one reason why the poor are stuck in a vicious circle, generation after generation.
The US public school system seems to be a better model. There are many problems with it, and I'll address them in subsequent blog entries - but completely deregulating the education sector is not the answer.
- 19% of all children in India work as domestic help.
- Somewhere between 17 million and 100 million children in India work for a living (depending on whose statistics you believe)
In India, children are preferred as domestic help. Since domestic help often lives in the employer's household around the clock, children are preferred because they are less likely to commit crime, and it's safer to employ them. I know many people in India who employ children as domestic help - and they indeed treat them well. They argue that they're giving a child a better life - the child would have possibly starved otherwise, or turned towards more dangerous ways of earning a living. Even the parents of the children would agree with this assessment.
But there's a vicious circle at work here. By denying that child an education, this child will grow up with limited earning potential, at the bottom rung of society. When that child ends up having children of his own - he will be faced with the same cruel choice - to force his children to work so that they can survive.
I see this as a failure of the state to provide a low-cost, high-quality education system. This was not always so. India had a decent government school system a few decades back. But then, there was an explosion of private schools (possibly because the government did not expand the number of public schools fast enough to cope with increased demand). Students from middle-class and affluent families who could afford these schools moved to the private schools. Since these were also the students who did well - the pool of students in government schools detiorated - and that led to a flight of good teachers from government schools.
India still has a government-run school system - but no one cares about it anymore. The middle-class sends its children to the private schools. The poor cannot afford these private schools - and yet, the government schools do not prepare their children to move up in the world. The government in turn, does not have the will to fix the crumbling infrastructure and lack of resources in public schools - after all, a significant portion of the voting public doesn't even care about these schools.
And that's one reason why the poor are stuck in a vicious circle, generation after generation.
The US public school system seems to be a better model. There are many problems with it, and I'll address them in subsequent blog entries - but completely deregulating the education sector is not the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)