Words for my thoughts

The Curse of Mediocrity

Posted by Alok on November 29, 2007

A recent discussion over a stupid 10 marks quiz being held again on the request of some students who couldn’t score well in the first quiz triggered this debate which I am going to elaborate with some more dimensions added to it. To summarize the entire debate which lasted for 2 days and died its natural death, let me just write that it was a debate between meritocracy and mediocrity. Some people might take some offence on this statement but, doesn’t matter to me.

 The love for mediocrity is not new in India. It started the very day reservations based on any factor were introduced in education, employment or any other field. Don’t confuse me with someone who is not in favor of giving equal chance to deserving but deprived section of society, what I am opposed to is the wastage of these chances over people who are neither deserving nor deprived. Economic reservation is justified but I am totally against the concept of caste based reservation. Somebody doesn’t become eligible to sit and talk with an intelligent person just because he/she is from a particular caste or tribe. This system has been grossly misused. First, the father was given reservation and he became an IAS officer, then the elder son became a doctor based on his caste and now his younger brother wants to reuse this to get into an IIM after wasting an engineering seat at IIT. By no means does he or his brother deserve this since they were given all possible facilities to study during their schooling. But they are given the chance and the seeds of mediocrity are sown which promise to pollute the entire system in the long run.

The second factor for mediocrity comes from the shoddy and “chalta-hai” attitude of people around. People are not ready to take responsibility for their actions. But they all want equal rewards as if the person who puts in efforts and takes responsibility is a fool. When somebody deserving wants to assert his/her right, beautiful words like selfish, perverse and self-centered etc etc are used. I want to ask one question, who stopped you from following the paths of the so-called selfish person at the first place? If he/she can do it, why can’t you? Are you not capable enough? Or were you so lazy that you didn’t care to think about the outcome in advance? If yes, then you are neither lazy nor casual, you are simply a fool fooling yourself and none else. You may get a second chance here since it’s just a training ground, but believe me mate, life doesn’t give second chances. A person who is better will always be better than you, he will always think ahead and foresee the consequences while you may be busy boozing around living in your own sweet dream world where everything works as you want. It doesn’t happen this way, and I pray to God for it to never happen this way.

Third factor is over emphasized love for social service, society and feeling of benevolence. These are noble feelings and should not be used for the sake of using them. Be benevolent to old, be kind to those who are hurt, be generous to the needy ones but be equally harsh to undeserving people. I don’t believe in the theory of “God made all equal in terms of thinking power and self control and deserve equally”, even if He did, the chaff is separated from the wheat very early in the life. People going to same school end up very differently, one may be a billionaire industrialist while the other may just end being his employee. What caused the difference, they both started together? The difference lies in their dedication, commitment and self regulation. One of them took responsibility of what he did while the other waited for somebody to feed him thinking that it’s the other person’s duty to feed him. Again, this doesn’t happen in real life. A person who feeds always remains superior to the person being fed.

I don’t know why people are so averse to hearing that whatever somebody does is for himself and for no one else, however disguised the actions maybe. Somebody who has put in many nights and days’ hard-work to setup a factory wants returns. He doesn’t care about the employment generated or the contribution to the nation a bit. Go and ask Ambani or Tata about why they started their empires, I bet on my life if they give the answer you want to hear. Nobody does anything for others for free. I am not talking about saints or God who are different; I am talking about poor mortals who are driven by desires of food, love and power. If somebody is in the illusion that the world will be generous to a lazy, irresponsible and undeserving bum, he is doomed for his life today or tomorrow.

I don’t know how many of you have read Ayn Rand but will like to say that thinking about yourself and your good is not perverse. What is bad is doing the same on someone else’s expense. Putting in hard-work to achieve what you aspire for is not being selfish; in fact it is the other way around. If you believe that someone else should come and give you what you want, then it is being selfish (you are living in a fool’s paradise is a different matter altogether).

My sincere request to everyone; think about what you want, try hard to achieve it and most importantly learn to take responsibility for your actions accepting failures on the way. And, there is no harm in thinking about you first!!!

Disclaimer: All the views are personal and not meant for anyone specific. It would be an utter misfortune if some people take it personally and feel offended.  

21 Responses to “The Curse of Mediocrity”

  1. Arpit Kapoor Says:

    Awesome stuff!!!!

    Taken the discussion to a much higher level, where you would reap what you had sown. And you can’t cry foul just because others worked hard and you were lazy. More so how many opportunities one should give to such people is questionable, because they will always feel there is always a next chance.

    Great going Whistle-Blower ;)

  2. Gaurav Dixit Says:

    I completely agree with you Alok.

    Ayn Rand(in ‘The Fountainhead’ 1943) - “Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
    Everybody is responsible for their own doings. Clear-cut rules should be there to promote quality ideas and work ; rather than hazy- uncertain environment with different rules for different people.
    A central authority must, without partiality see to it that same rules are enforced on all;
    otherwise it will be the rule of Jungle - whose o ever has got power take it all!!

  3. Vivek Says:

    Interesting read…
    the chalta hai attitude is something thats been commented upon by loads others…
    just had one comment to possibly further the discussion…
    do you think that culturally we are still living in the nehruvian neo-socialsm/neo-capitalism when the world and our economy has moved on to more capitalist dreams ?

  4. Alok Says:

    Totally agreed to what u r saying.. We still believe that world will be benovelent to people who do not want to work for themselves. We still believe that love for money or power is bad forgetting that if some people did not want to make money some time back in their lives, the world wud still have been eating raw flesh and living in Jungles..

  5. Mayank Says:

    You talked that a person always “thinks about oneself”, now if someone wants to make amends for his mistakes, isnt he also “thinking about oneself”? The world thinks about themselves and that no person is different. The problem here is not with individuals but with the system. but sadly you have attributed the problem to individuals. if the system gives one chance to rectify our mistake then every individual would lap up the opportunity.I wont discuss whether the system gives us second opportunities or not but the point is that if we made any decision which we know in the hindsight is wrong, we would certainly like to change it, given a chance. Take for example, with the concept of arranged marriage prevalent in our society, suppose a person gets married to an incompatible partner just because he let his parents decide for him. Now according to you, that person should live with agony his whole life because he made a wrong decision and should abide by it. or should he walk out of the marriage and try to find a partner himself. Should that person be allowed to rectify his mistake or should he continue on the basis that once he took a decision, he should never back out.

  6. Alok Says:

    Dude u r misinterpreting my whole argument. Its not about sticking along with something which you decided with full knowledge, neither its about suffering becoz of others’ decisions. Rectifying ur mistakes because they happened without any fault of your is totally fine, what is illogical is not taking responsibility of your own decisions and cursong someone who was courageous enough to do so…

  7. Mayank Says:

    Its not about cursing individuals on either side. The point I am trying to drive is that even if your actions led to a fault, you would like to change it if given a chance.The problem is with the system which allows you to do so. Bad mouthing individualistic traits which always looks for individual gains always is not a good idea. What you are doing is that on one hand you are supporting the idea that people always look for themselves and on other hand you are lambasting people who are doing so.Those people who want to get their actions correct via a next chance have the sole purpose of individual benefit.

  8. Alok Says:

    Change but on at the cost of others. When its ur decision affecting only you, change it but when u did not try enough to make sure that the decision materialises then u have no right to say anything abt it. If changing ur decisions is for ur own good then ppl who did things right in the first place also have a right to stop you from getting another chance coz it was you who is responsible for ur wrong doings and have no right to force others to die with you in the name of rechance.

  9. Gaurav Says:

    Well…initially didnt want to enter the discussion but it seems Mayank has valid point here. The whole idea is everybody looks for gain. …Be it others who want to improve their grade, which may raise the average bar and affect your grade indirectly; or be it you who wants to stop others from raising the bar to maintain your position.

    Since, future is predicted in discussion, I want to talk facts here…In historic times, any king has who had won battles ….did not have right to enjoy the throne for rest of his life…He had to prove his mattle agaian and again….If one believes he is the best… he should’nt fear by “10″ mark quiz/ such petty things are and will be bigger issues than this in future.

    Rest, as Mayank said …if system (which is defined to bring rationality to whole process) gives leverage, every1 will try to misuse it for his own benefit. So is it happening right now, I believe its a systems fault, and nowhere we should judge others decision.

    *Well, I am against retest and re-quiz, but I will still give it. I maintain a neutral stand on people’s viewpoint. If I really wish to change something, I would have done it at systems level, may be through studcon involvement, not through spam mails. :)

  10. Gaurav Says:

    Well…initially didnt want to enter the discussion but it seems Mayank has valid point here. The whole idea is everybody looks for gain. …Be it others who want to improve their grade, which may raise the average bar and affect your grade indirectly; or be it you who wants to stop others from raising the bar to maintain your position.

    Since, future is predicted in discussion, I want to talk facts here…In historic times, any king has who had won battles ….did not have right to enjoy the throne for rest of his life…He had to prove his mattle agaian and again….If one believes he is the best… he should’nt fear by “10″ mark quiz/ such petty things are and will be bigger issues than this in future.

    Rest, as Mayank said …if system (which is defined to bring rationality to whole process) gives leverage, every1 will try to misuse it for his own benefit. So is it happening right now, I believe its a systems fault, and nowhere we should judge others decision.

    *Well, I am against retest and re-quiz, but I will still give it. I maintain a neutral stand on people’s viewpoint. If I really wish to change something, I would have done it at systems level, may be through studcon involvement, not through spam mails. :)

  11. Neha Says:

    Agree to most of the things mentioned in the blog but wait a minute…wats this “A person who feeds always remains superior to the person being fed. ” Can’t disgaree more

  12. sandeep gupta Says:

    whooooff awesome post mann.. ur setting the levels higher n higher with each of your new post…

    but first of all
    FS to what neha said.

    Alok when i started reading this post it promised to be a very pleasurable read…but in the middle something snapped…again as you say these are my personal comments and not meant to be taken too seriously if you dont concur.

    “the chaff is separated from the wheat very early in the life.People going to same school end up very differently, one may be a billionaire industrialist while the other may just end being his employee. What caused the difference, they both started together? The difference lies in their dedication, commitment and self regulation.”

    dedication, commitment n self regulation are’nt the only factors that decide what a person wants to be and certainly cannot decide the chaff or grain. being ambitious and being disparaging of others way of thinking are two distinct aspects of human thinking while the first gives u the wings to fly the second thinking clips the wings that others want to have in their own microcosm.
    if tata n reliance are nt doing anything for anyone but themselves then that doesn’t make them any superior to anyone else, infact it brings them to the same pedestal with those who work for them.

  13. Alok Says:

    @ Sandeep: Why are tata and reliance at the same level? They were ambitious enuf and hardworking enuf to reach where they are today, while 1000s of people just work for them. I myself agree that there can be people who work for them by choice but they simply do not have the vision (including me). And the concept of feeding and being fed is not literal. It applies only to those people who can feed themselves by working but they choose not to do it. It is not fr employer-employee mechanism.

    Secondly, if dedication, commitment n self regulation do not decide ur fate, then wat decides it? Leave apart the luck factor (that too is debatable) and i cant think of any other reason fr not acheiving what you aspire for. Would like to quote an old cliched saying, “Where there is a will, there is a way”. If not allways then atleast 90% of the times.

    But I welcome all your comments, thats what a discussion is all about. Not meant to change views of the other person but to reason logically, intellectually :)

  14. sandeep gupta Says:

    i think i cudnt explain what i wanted to say…u said there s a difference that makes a person a tata or “just” an employee….all these qualities (as mentioned by you) are essential for success but then the sense i got frm ur post is that acc to u gettng success in monetary terms is all that counts…thats y u put in the arguments like “A person who feeds always remains superior to the person being fed” or “the chaff is separated from the wheat very early in the life.People going to same school end up very differently,……..One of them took responsibility of what he did while the other waited for somebody to feed him thinking that it’s the other person’s duty to feed him”
    i would never walk a road not choosen by myself but i cannt see myself becomng a ambani either.
    im not doubting what u want to say what im not comfortable with is what you are actually putting in words…”chaff” or “grain” cannt be decided by you or me or by anybody else..i agree wid ur first part where in u talk about being ambitious and giving everyone a fair chance…but in later parts(as quoted) the sense i got ws that your ” i am right ” attitude gave way to ” everyone else is wrong (read those who choose diff goals than as supported in the post)”

  15. PSN Says:

    Alok Hi,

    Picked this link up from a spam on IP ;). A thriving blog you have here, congratulations. Try as I might, I can’t get myself to agree. I really don’t think the title justifies the issue. To me, it’s not about mediocrity at all. It’s perhaps an issue about morality - and the problem with such issues is that nobody’s right. And most of us find ourselves changing sides as we drift along in life - so trying to take the moral high ground (like the post does) isn’t always the best way ahead - cos most often there is a ‘higher’ ground. (Among other things)You mention Rand but forget the self-centrality of the argument of those that demand the re-test..

    A tricky issue ;). See you around.

  16. subodh Says:

    Could not agree more,after all the universal truth is that “all human actions and emotions are born out of self interest”. Although on most occasions we wrap them with social welfare, community welfare packings so as to make them appealing to the targeted audience.
    But somehow there seems to be a disconnect between the starting/title and the central theme of your passage. I think the central theme is more about the divide between capitalistic and socialistic thinking, about self-interests and morality.

  17. Annonymous Says:

    Dear Mr. Rastogi,
    You being from a KAYSTHA caste (read upper caste arrogant), how the helle can u corelate with the woes of the lower castes (even if they r economically welloff). tell me would u give a girl from yr family to a lower caste boy who is economically affluent?? Say YES to preserve yr hypocrite diplomatic stance..
    The truth is upper castes in India comprise of just 2% Brahmins, 11% (Thakurs+Kayasthas),7%Vishyas… and the remaining vast majority of 80% SCs,STs & OBC’s…
    Why the hell do u think u get the right to rule over the remaining others?? Just beacuse by centuries of selctive breeding, the upper castes garnered away all the genetics required to look fair, handsome & pretty & also the inteligence.
    Then u blabber about merotocracy & IQ.
    Don’t forget the so called upper castes students from India are the biggest beneficiers of the positive affirmatiion action in the US. Ab bolo… where does this debate of equality evaporate on landing to US?
    The truth is we as humans r worst then animals… always oppurtunists… just beacuse u cudn’t get to an IIM A,B or C … u accrue all frustartions to the reservations prevailing…

    You are so prejudiced… & then u claims Prof.A.F.Mathew had transformed you?

  18. Alok Says:

    First of all, thanks fr being kind enough to give feedback on the post. I assume u r from IIMK. Now let me try to answer your accusations one by one, very gently. U have no right to speak about my caste and economic condition if you do not have your facts in place. Secondly, can you by any logic prove me that a very rich lower class student should be given any reservation if he went to a better school than me, if his father could afford him the best private tutors, if he was not fr one day beaten nude (referring to oppressions), if he could afford to get the best engineering/medical/CAT coaching, if he wasnt required to worry about making the ends meet for his family? U want an example, let me give u an example (for this u have to believe what i m saying is true). A classmate of mine in engineering got thru the entrance via reservations. His father was IAS officer, that student had his own car, spent 1000s in cigarettes and booze every month, so we r clear that he was not downtrodden. This fellow was unable to pass from the college because of infinite number of supplimentaries, not because he has poor genes, because he didnt care. Now justify his wasting of one seat in the name of “so called reservation”.

    Coming to your point about genetic exploitation, that is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Now when u do not have a logical argument u bring in the concept of genes, implying that all lower caste people have poor genes and “all” upper caste people have superb genes. Then can u justify the lacs of “genetically magnificently designed” people to suffer. They suffer because they do not want to make the effort.

    Once you have all the resources at your disposal, it is “YOUR” responsibility to make use of it. If you dont, then u r the one who should suffer. A poor student should be given a chance to prove himself/herself.

    And i do not to say this, but u made me write this, I may not have gotten through A, B or C but wherever I am today is because of my hardwork. Maybe i did not deserve to enter those place, think about you, u dont deserve to be even here.

    If I have been pungent in my remarks, its because you started it with some absurb arguments about economically welloff but genetically robbed people.

  19. Aakash Goel Says:

    Dear dear dear anonymous, first of all, check the spelling…..and please, please, kindly tell me my caste and religion — i am an athiest and wasnt aware of SC/STs until i was in 11th and wasnt aware of OBCs until last year….i am an ignorant fool and didnt knew i was ruling you….by the way, may i know the name of one of my 80% praja? and as a king i order you to stop terming your mom and dad as inferior…..you can continue to call yourself whatever you want

    i wasnt able to understand ‘giving away a girl from ur family’…..for your kind information, we dont give/take girls…..the idea is ridiculous, but one has to be atleast -160 on an IQ scale to ‘give’ his/her daughter/sister to someone of your thinking.

    IQ…its as simple as 1+1=2 or 1+1=11….if u cant explain either because u dont belong to ’selective’ breed, then i am really with your cause….by the way, i didnt understood ur cause…..u see, i am a moron…can u explain it a little? but, if u want some ms. universe as ur muse, then sorry, thats the cause of billions.

    Prof. Mathew…..i dont think anyone wrote about being transformed by him lest u…..i dont remember exactly but he said something about class difference than caste difference…remember the context?

    Sir also mentioned something about latest research - some black african lady as the first woman…..and everyone having same set of genes…..it has been in a lot of newspapers as well…..so, if you were born as a normal earthling and not as a test-tube baby from the genes brought from pluto, then please stop the crap.

    lastly, i, as an animal, take this opportunity to vent out all my frustration of not getting into IIM A, B, C, D, E, F……kindly take the opportunity and come out of anonymity…..or that is again ‘caste specific’??

  20. Neel Says:

    ahem ahem… anonymous comments on ur blog…

    Gabbar… people really are afraid of u :)

  21. Fawkes Says:

    Folks, I am new to this forum, and this link was passed on to me by a friend who happens to be a 2nd year student at IIM-K. Considering that this blog is maintained by an IIM-K student, and most of the audience seems to belong to IIM-K, I am something of an outsider here. I have no quarrel with the sentiments expressed here, by the writer or by the commentators. Nothing radical has been said here, and most thinking people would come to similar conclusions sometime or the other. And while I personally don’t agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I concede that it would be alluring for certain kinds of people. What I wish to contest here is, the idea of intelligence that is being discussed in this forum.

    To start with, intelligence is a very subjective term. To define intelligence in terms of number crunching ability, familiarity with the usage of language (mainly English) without going into the finer nuances of it, and a basic grounding in rules of logic is fallacious. Besides, even the logical reasoning ability that is being referred to here, is shorn of its philosophical moorings, and very little is known or expected to be known of such common logical fallacies as ad hominem, argumentum ad numerum, appeal to authority, tu quoque, slippery slope and similar traps that our intelligent people repeatedly resort to, themselves. Not only is this definition of intelligence very narrow and limiting, it fails to take into account what the basic function of intelligence is supposed to be! Intelligence according to me, at its most basic level is meant to help us lead our day to day lives, avoiding danger, and it is the ability to learn from one’s past experiences and put those into practice. Besides, such a narrow definition of intelligence does not take into account more useful, practical skills that cannot be measured in a pen and paper test, but which are more vital for our day to day functioning.

    One might be the foremost theoretical physicist of one’s age, but if he is travelling in an automobile in the dead of night, and his vehicle breaks down, all his knowledge of particle physics will not come to his help. He will need to seek the help of a car mechanic, who is supposedly several orders of magnitude “less intelligent” than him. But then intelligent people (or the meritorious people as the print media in India would define it), are supposed to be armchair critics, and getting their hands dirty with engine oil is the last thing you would expect from an ‘intelligent person’.

    Now that I am done nitpicking with the nature of intelligence, let me start with a commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Since the days of Shakespeare (and even before) there has been a spirited debate on the difference between nature vs. nurture. Before the work of the 20th century geneticists like Morgan, Benzer, Sturtevant, Watson and many others who succeeded them and carried their work forward, this question was impossible to answer. There were certain traits in our personality that came from inheritance and certain other traits that were developed from the environment around us. No one knew which came from where, and the philosophers had a field day, speculating. Since the beginning of the previous century, biologists started research on the behavioural sciences. Flies were the simplest creatures who could be made to mate easily and produce hybrids and mutants, so as to isolate individual genes responsible for each atomic behaviour. A lot of study has been done already in gene mapping, and soon it will be possible to find out which of our traits come from genes and which of them come from our upbringing. You would be wondering how all this is relevant to the discussion at hand!

    As I said intelligence is a combination of nature and nurture. Nature refers to our genetic makeup, something that has been passed on to us by our ancestors, and that is completely random in nature. Genes are known to skip generations, and a trait peculiar to a man may be passed on to his grandson and not to his son. There is no known logic behind it. A very ‘intelligent’ person might have a progeny who is an idiot. Einstein, for instance, had a son who was a schizophrenic for instance, and none of his other children displayed his intelligence. The point I am trying to make is, that this so called intelligence, like all other behavioral traits that we display, is a completely random occurrence. You cannot take any more credit for being born intelligent, than you can, for having grey eyes. Considering oneself superior to others on the basis of something as prone to chance as an inherited trait, like intelligence, is to put it mildly, not very intelligent.

    Next we come to nurture. This refers to our upbringing, the benefits and facilities we enjoyed in our childhood, the kind of schooling that we were given and such others. To put it simply, a person who had the opportunity to read Hegel, Kant and Nietzsche during her adolescence would be better acquainted with Western philosophy than someone who was brought up on a diet of Premchand. Does this tell us anything about their respective intelligence(s)?

    This comment has got more verbose than I intended it to be. I would like to clarify that I am against reservations in any form. But the debate cannot be centered around arguments like intelligence vs mediocrity, which are very vague terms and are difficult to define properly. Of the two factors that determine intelligence, genes cannot be easily altered, and most people will vociferously protest if any such attempt was made (witness the hue and cry about Bt cotton and genetically altered potatoes). Genes however are too random, and in any group or race of people who are otherwise equally placed in other worldly factors, it can be argued that distribution of intelligence as a function of population size should be similar. It is in the circumstances of birth, and conditions of living that discrepancies need to be accounted for, and which are being sought to be countered by reservations. Applying corrective action in the form of reservations, at the undergrad or postgrad level is an exercise in futility since a person’s character, abilities and intelligence are already determined for better or for worse at that age, and it cannot be changed without considerable effort. Reservations if at all, should be provided at the primary school level and should be discontinued after SSC. After that, the best any government can do, is in providing concessions in tuition fees, boarding and lodging for the economically disadvantaged.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>