Unlimited Right To Question- Is It Right?
Posted : December 28, 2005 at 8:34 am [IST]
I read in ‘The Hindustan Times’ first the report of Indian scientists questioning the honour of Nobel Prize going to Roy J Glauber alone for his work in theoretical physics, though Prof Sudarshan had made seminal contributions to the same subject. Harvard Crimson, a student-run daily which claims to be the only breakfasttable daily of Cambridge, Massachusetts had reported it. But how justified it is to question such a selection for the highly respected prize of the world? If at all some questionable decisions are to be contested, it would have come from other nationals or some International Scientific bodies. However, a second representation signed by four scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, where Prof Sudarshan currently teaches, was sent to the chairman of the Nobel physics committee. They requested changes in the citation clarifying, as Sudarshan was the first to formulate the quantum mechanical theory of optical coherence. But here again why couldn’t some scientist groups of other reputed universities do that? Why a truth can’t be accepted universally at least in this class of celebrity? Why couldn’t Roy J Glauber who must be knowing the work of Sudarshan as well or perhaps better, make any remark on the subject?
The selection committee of BCCI dropped Sourav Ganguly. There were protests in Kolkata. Even many former test cricketers talked about the wrong done to him. He had served Indian cricket in a great way. And then even politicians such as Somnath Chatterji and Chief Minister of West Bengal talked about his dropping, as if they want to protest against an injustice done to a person belonging to their state and not for a cricketer who really deserved to be in the team. If the selection process was biased, the system must undergo change so that the bias is removed forever. Ten days after being dropped from the side, Sourav Ganguly met the president of BCCI and then forced his way back into the Indian Test squad for the tour of Pakistan early next month. And every one was happy, but perhaps the selection board. And Sourav went into some other controversy for not playing in Ranji match. Why can’t the selection board be left to do its work on basis of merit? Why can’t the lobbying be over? Naturally Sourav inclusion means exclusion of one other young player. Is it right?
Why do we justify our affiliations with the persons on basis of geography of the place of birth, language, or country of origin?
- Indra
Category: Uncategorized |
2 Comments »
I totally agree on this one. Noone should be interfereing with working of an organization/selection process. If there needs to be a change the change has to come at the core. Noone should be allowed to interfere with the process.I was very disappointed when everyone started talking about selection comittee and how there decision was wrong. Noone has the authority to say anything to them. It is like never going to vote in elections and then cursing politicians who get elected….
Posted by: Sudhir Hasbe at December 28, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
I would not like to make comments on whether or not it is right. But I feel that in this competetive world, it is the mediocre who has to struggle. It is the mediocre who would indulge in lame practices of cribbing on the reasons keeping him from being successful, or reasons, why he was not choosen member in the team of 11. It is him who has to explain the reasons for his existence. The Tendulkars, Laras, Kallises dont bother to make any comments, their performance alone speaks for them. In a team where there is too many controversies, on whom to keep whom to take out, or keeping an experienced member would actually take away the chance of a youngster, speaks itself of the mediocre team.
I hope someone agrees to the point I am trying to make.
Is this right?
Posted by: Sukhbir Kalsi at December 30, 2005 @ 1:23 am
Leave a Comment