The man who can’t

India needs a can-do leader

If you wanted some irony supplements today, consider this. When his cabinet colleagues demanded that the Government of India take action against a glorified thug, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh helplessly said “what can I do?”

Oh, but that didn’t stop him from setting in motion a communal socialist policy that will force private primary schools to set aside one out of every four places for economically underprivileged children in the neighbourhood. Those who want to continue believing that he is a genuine reformer and other childhood fairy tales would perhaps say in his defence, “what can he do?”

If he can’t, perhaps he should just step down. Like he should have done a long time ago. For what good is a prime minister who can’t?

5 thoughts on “The man who can’t”

  1. More irony supplements: in the same breath that he laments “what can I do?”, he also complains bitterly that he’s called a nikamma PM.

  2. Comrade jujung,

    You need to explain why a socialist/communist style of curbing of freedoms of private schools is a “good” thing. These schools, by choice, do not depend on government funding, and enjoy freedom with respect to admission policies. The government is forcing them to change their character through a draconian bill.

    While on the subject, you need to explain why a socialist/commie style of governance in general is a “good” thing — despite the fact that communism wrought untold misery, genocided millions of people and impoverished the survivors.

    >>Perhaps you have a better plan?

    Sure. Let’s begin with the education cess this “government” has been collecting from taxpayers for four years now. The first step is to ask an audit of these funds. What happened to them? If they disappeared, whose pockets were lined? Congress’s? Or their commie friends’? The usual socialist loot?

    Assuming the funds are intact, here’s what this incompetent government can do: 1) encourage the intended beneficiaries of its policy to seek admission in private schools. 2) If they secure admission, reach financial assistance directly to the families of students, not to the schools. 3) Incentivize private schools to admit students from financially weaker backgrounds.

    You got any ideas, comrade, barring the socialist ones that are bound to get us into a totalitarian state?

  3. Oldtimer,

    reg your three points:
    I think it makes more sense to give money to skls for each child admitted rather than giving it to poor parents who may not use that money for sending children to skls. The remaining two points are probably being addressed in the bill.

  4. >>I think it makes more sense to give money to skls for each child admitted rather than giving it to poor parents who may not use that money for sending children to skls.

    Why? Educating children is fundamentally the parents’ responsibility, not the state’s. Should the government take over parenting, then?

    But more importantly, I’m surprised you’re not demanding that the government set up schools with all that tax loot. It’s weird that socialist comrades, who scream their lungs off when the government so much as divests 1% stake in a hotel business it has no business running, want to encourage the same government when it is trying to wash its hands off the responsibility of running schools by passing the buck to private enterprise. I believe this government has leftwing extremists like Jayati Ghosh on its policy-advisor payroll. Have they then conceded tacitly that the state is by nature incapable of running cost centers like schools, let alone profit centers like businesses?

Comments are closed.