I have
been thinking of writing about JUSTICE as I see the concept influencing my life
and those of people around.
I define
justice as ‘rightful quid pro quo’ – I get back what I deserve. If I
contributed 50% to a project, a test or in organizing an event, I should get
back AT LEAST 50% of the credit.
Credit, I
understand can be a subjective term subject to individual egos and expectations
of rewards. But I guess it would not be wrong to say that assessment of an individual’s worth, if transparent can turn out to be more acceptable and less
debatable.
I had
high opinion of the World Lung Foundation and its DU arm DUSFI (Delhi
University Smoke Free Initiative), may be because of the creative names and the
impact it would leave on a first time listener, until yesterday. At the essay
competition organized under the initiative, a series of events and organizational
mismanagement left me with a bad taste about WLF.
Surprisingly
the judgment criteria at the Essay Contest reminded me of those old school head
masters, one often reads of, who exist in backward schools in remote areas.
Consider the marking scheme at the contest which was supposed to be an ‘essay
writing contest’ – 30 for written essay, 30 for summary presentation of the
essay and 40 for an interview with the candidate. Impressive!
Now
consider how the latter category induced such level of subjectivity into the judgment
criteria to the extent that the ingenuity of the essay received no credits at
all.
Although
the essay dealt with ‘the social, economic and environmental implications of
tobacco consumption’, the interview related to none of the aspects. Neither did
it try to assess the degree of sensitivity of the candidate to the issue. The kind
of questions asked at the interview were the following:
1.
Name some of the chemicals
that tobacco is composed of.
2.
What is the Green Tobacco
Sickness caused by tobacco? How can we prevent it?
3.
Give me the date on which this
act on tobacco was passed.
4.
Why is eucalyptus planted
along with tobacco crop in farms?
It is
precisely these kinds of questions which reminded me of those boring school EVS
textbooks which we were encouraged to learn by heart to vomit out in the exams
at school. The very difference between knowledge and education is that the
latter is composed of stuff that cannot be googled. Education of a person is a
cumulative sum of years of experience amidst knowledge.
I fail to
understand how the real worth of a person would be gauged by mere factual
interrogation which even a parrot could recite without hitch. Not to mention,
the experience brought old school memories back.
I expected the initiative to be an eye-opener for students,
something that would elicit our opinions on tobacco control and assess us on
our ingenuity to think BEYOND the obvious! That is what most college level
initiatives are supposed to be.
Alas! The school-headmasterly clichéd mindsets were hard to
change, I realized – in fact, when I communicated the above views to the Director
present there, he told me, “Everyone has copied the essay from the internet, so
this interview is actually gauging how much you have actually retained” – he enunciated as if he was
on the lookout of worthy parrots who could recite dates, figures and facts.
Strangely, at my interview I was told in candid words – ‘Miss
Kaur, let me congratulate you at the outset because you are the only candidate who has
written the entire essay by herself – rest all, as we have read, are fascimiles’
I felt as if I had bumped into a wrong place, being congratulated
for the mere fact that I had composed an essay of my own and not through a ‘Ctrl
C - Ctrl V’ act!
As it turned out in the end, the interview had greater weightage
in the sum total i.e. factual rote learning was given credit over ingenuity and people who had shamelessly copied stuff and signed their
names off it, were crowned as the 'best'.
What I argue here, is that the parameters taken into account compromised justice. Different people can give differential weights to different parameters - but the same if revealed beforehand in a transparent manner, can confer greater likelihood on the fairness of decisions.
I participated in my first British Parliamentary style of debate in my class 12 at school. The thing I liked the most here was the way in which adjudication was done. After the candidates were done, the judges would come to the podium and justify - 'you get x credits since you mentioned a, b, c, and d arguments which no other contestant could refute'. And usually the credits would be proportional to the number of arguments so that the question of subjectivity would not crop in. Each argument thus was given a default weightage of 1. An additional defense of the argument could attract another brownie point.
From a variety of experiences, I guess it would not be wrong to conclude that injustice happens behind closed doors, windows and curtains. It is corrupt practices specifically which undermine the fairness of decisions taken - be it in the bureaucracy too. The reason why people protest against corruption is that it compromises proportionate rewards to an individual for his effort and levies undue penalties on those who do not even deserve them - say waiting in line for days to get a simple work done in a public office.
And that is why RTI is so dear to us. It makes things transparent, makes the stakeholders conscious of public gaze and ensures speedy and effective justice. :)
