@ Aristotle

I really have enjoyed Aristotle's criticism on philosophers ... Aristotle was a strong critique of Plato, after all.

Well, I am not against the existence of institutions. But institutions should not be as big fools as to be not able to recognize what could be the real best option in various particular situations. I quoted the case of a candidate whose over-all 62% marks could not save her from being declared FAIL in written exam. May be you cannot realize the Stupidity of FPSC in this case. One can better realize it if one personally go through similar instances.

Secondly I am in need to clarify what meaning I take of 'strong' person and 'strong' institution.

In this connection, we denote 'strong person' generally as a person who does not care for rules and regulations for negative purposes or for personal selfish reasons. This is the popular meaning and it is negative meaning.

But I had not used 'strong person' with this negative meaning. For me, 'strong person' would be that one who does not care for rules and regulations for good and positive reasons.

Now about strong Institutions:

You say:

"Strength doesnt mean anything else than Independent Decisions ,decisions on merit."

Well, if you are talking of 'strong institutions' in that sense which you are favoring, then let me point out that under the system of 'strong institutions' which you favour, decisions are NOT independent and decisions are NOT on COMPETENCY (here I hav replaced ‘competency’ for ‘merit’).

Because in 'strong institutions', decisions DEPEND on rigid rules and policies .... whereas meaning of 'merit' is NOT level of competency but is just 'level of compliance to written rules and policies'.

I ask you a simple question. There are two students who are doing Masters in Physics. University has designed a pet syllabus for Physics. First student is research minded and he takes pain in trying to find new facts about Physics. For this purpose he has to spend time in his research activities.

Second student is good crammer of syllabus books. What shall happen in the University exam….????? Crammer of syllabus books shall come on MERIT. On the other hand, research minded student might fail in University exam because he had been full time busy in his research activities.

My question to you is that who is more competent ……. ?????

If you say that research minded person is more competent …. Then you are in favour of strong personalities because in this case your decision has been INDEPENDENT OF RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

If you say that person who is good crammer of syllabus books is more competent …….. then you are in favour of strong institutions because your decision has been BASED ON RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

In my opinion, research minded person is REAL competent whereas crammer just have come on merit.

My another question to you is that: “Competency Vs Merit” …… What do you like……????

Competency can go anywhere – it can set its own direction also … Merit is just a blind chase of rigid rules and policies. Competency is the quality of leaders. Merit is the quality of followers. Leaders are those who show others some new direction. Remember that any new direction could not be contained in previously written rules and policies. Those who are just to follow the already written rules and policies, how can they go to any new direction….??? A person who does not go to any new direction, how can he show any new direction to others??? And a person who does not show the new direction to others ---- simply he is not leader. Perhaps he is such a ‘manager’ who cannot take many independent decisions …. Because his decisions would depend on written rules and policies.

Then you say:
Yes I am against decisions on merit …. But in above mentioned sense. And yes there should be strong personalities … above all rules, above all codes …… but they must be allowed to go beyond all rules and all codes only for good and positive reasons.


Here you have used ‘strong personalities’ for those people who break rules for personal selfish reasons…. I do not call these people as ‘strong personalities’. They are actually selfish personalities. I am extending my support only to strong personalities and not to selfish personalities.

Yes if we make our institutions ‘strong’ (within your meaning) then we would not be in need of competent persons. Just like an incompetent driver of a better car can win the race with competent driver, who drives an old car.

We already have shortage of competent persons …. Do you want to cover this shortage in this way….???? By eliminating the role of any human competency……????

But you have forgotten that the incompetent driver shall be able to win the race only when a competent person would already have invented a better car. I already had pointed out in my previous post that ‘strong institutions’ only make our lives more mechanical. Nothing would happen if you replace all the persons in your ‘strong institution’ with mechanical computer aid robots. So there would be no need of humans in your strong institutions. I again have given all the philosophical reasons in support of my views. I can give examples of ground realities also where so-called strength of institutions have given the results of miseries for general public and have opened the avenues for corruption in many government departments. Our official taxation laws, for instance, are so harsh that tax liabilities of small businessmen can reach to such amounts, which may be more than total capital employed. I know that now-a-days, personal property of a person is going to be seized. That person did business of making soda-water bottles on small scale and supplied them to small village shops. What could be his total capital …. 2 lack, 5 lacks or so…..

Since he did not get himself registered in tax department … so he has been found to be guilty of tax evasion plus penalties etc. amounting to more than 15 lacks.

Another business had to be closed just because that businessman made payments to his supplier in cash instead of through banking channel. Otherwise that businessman had been a regular tax payer and he had deposited all his due taxes. He committed only this procedural mistake i.e. of not making payments to supplier through banking channels. In this way he has attracted penalties amounting to more than the total capital of business.

Since our BLIND strong institutions cannot see the on ground facts and they only can follow the written rules and policies …. So as a result, that business is closed now. I myself have won the case (being the representative of department in the judicial proceedings) against that businessman at Departmental tribunal level. In my private meetings with the advocate of businessman, I admitted that no revenue loss was involved in that case because taxpayer had duly deposited all the payable taxes. Only fault was procedural in nature where no government revenue loss was involved. But the penalties involved for such procedural mistake would amount to more than the capital employed by the business. During the judicial proceedings before the Tribunal, I argued that taxpayer had violated such and such rules and sections of Law so he may be penalized for it. So I myself play the role of ‘strong institution’. In another case, taxpayer had made such mistake which had little effect on government revenue. But he was charged with heavy penalty for the procedural mistake. Case already had been decided in favour of tax payer by the lower adjudication forum. Adjudication officer might be some “strong person” within my meanings …. So he had taken the decision in favour of tax payer because amount of revenue loss was really just minor.

On the next forum i.e. before Appellate Tribunal, I represented the department before Tribunal. First hearing of case was on 25th may … i.e. just two days before the start of CSS-2006 exams. I won the case on first hearing in favour of department by arguing that tax payer had violated such and such rules and laws.. Again I played the role of ‘strong institution’ and ‘weak personality’….. And I promoted real injustice in this way because tax payer had committed just immaterial type of procedural mistake which would have just minor impact on government revenue. Now that person shall pay heavy fines.

I also knew and Judges also knew that there had been no significant loss to government treasury in that case. But my role and the role of judges had been just to blindly follow the written policies and procedures. And this is what we really did. So how can you say that strong institutions shall solve all the problems of nation….???? Strong institutions themselves are a big problem….. because they are blind …. Because they prevent the personalities from applying their minds for the betterment of country. Because institutions possess no working mind ….. because they possess just mechanical written policies which might not be in the best interest of country in all the situations.


I shall entertain these remarks only when you give the example of any philosopher who said that sun rises in west … or crow is white …. Or similar blames which general public raise on philosophers.

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????