Not to mention his documents mentioning "Look at me...emmmeehh biig spyyy haa"
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
PiSigma
"the engineer"
I had a contractor use an "engineer" from India once, he was considered a senior and didn't know how to do basic calculations I gave to my new grads. I checked his resume and it says "graduated from a university in India with equivalent degree" as recognized by some random website he probably just paid money to. Here in Alberta, only way to practice engineer is to register with apega, the provincial engineering association who determines if the degree is recognized. The fact he won't list the school he went to and did not register with apega means he is not qualified. Just shows you the quality of their education system.
So even if they have enrolment, 80-90% of engineering grads are basically useless.
"I like to carry confidential documents all alone in the middle of nowhere . My hobbies are helping ppl find their lost yak" .
Correct! 90% are useless; their hiring and H1-B quota visas are manipulated by a nexus of Indian recruiters in league with corrupt hiring managers.
Typically hiring managers are supposed to verify the Indian qualifications via the Department of Education data base. The degrees are not checked nor are actual examination grades sought. The incompetence of 90% of the vast majority of Indian engineers arriving in North America has affected the credibility of the genuine 10% that has made it through University campus colleges.
The 10% University campus colleges have a reasonably qualified faculty and impart an academically adequate engineering education but except for a few IITs are completely disconnected from industrial exposure and internships. Even so they are far better than the thousands of donation college degree mills.
There is also a caste based quota
in the University campus college enrollment where 53% of the seats are reserved for tribal,low and "backward" caste students where low academic credentials are acceptable (and even encouraged ). Thus to qualify for the quota a "low" caste student has to get low grades. Instead of improving education at the school level and making education non-discriminatory the quota system at the university level ensures the majority of graduates pass with mediocre competence levels.
No country has such a system in the world.
Which is why strategically China has prevailed over India.
China is a robust homogeneous secular society with no class based discrimination in education. An atheist socialist, nationalist order is anytime superior to a caste,tribal, and religiously segmented socio economic setup.
On this topic: The silence from our Indian forum members on this forum, a few of which are "graduates" from these very fake engineering degree mills is resounding.,
A certain senior officer in the Indian Airforce of the rank of Wing Commander was returned within 60 hours after his plane was dinked in the skies by the enemy.
Interesting links:
Interesting article on India elites' mindset about India's position in the world and their real capacity. Particularly interesting is the book written by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India's external foreign affairs minister, the architect of India's current pro-US policy. His "three burdens from history" reflects what many Indians think why they land where they're today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elite in New Delhi delude themselves by thinking the country can hold its own on the world stage
by October 20, 2020
The perceptions of Indian political leaders and top bureaucrats about their country’s position in the world appear far removed from reality.
These elites appear not to be mindful of the republic’s fundamental purposes envisaged in the constitution. And they seem lost to their duty and function to the people.
Yet they want to attempt a massive task that is beyond their economic, technological, political, military and strategic capacity.
After I went through two books and three reports about India recently, I came to this conclusion.
The first was a recently published and slim volume titled The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. He had been in the Indian Foreign Service for more than four decades.
He became India’s external affairs minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term in May 2019. Modi also had made him foreign secretary in 2015 because of his pro-US foreign-policy thinking.
In his book, Jaishankar says India’s foreign policy carries three significant burdens from history. He writes:
“One is the 1947 Partition, which reduced the nation both demographically and politically. An unintended consequence was to give China more strategic space in Asia.
“Another is the delayed economic reforms that were undertaken a decade and a half after those of China. And far more ambivalently. The fifteen-year gap in capabilities continues to put India at a great disadvantage.
“The third is the prolonged exercise of the nuclear option.
“As a result, India has had to struggle mightily to gain influence in a domain that could have come so much more easily earlier. It is, of course, better that these issues are being addressed late than never. But greater self-reflection on our mistakes since 1947 would certainly serve the nation well. We could also extend that to the roads not taken.”
He also advocated taking the risk of going for an alliance with the US to rebalance China’s growing global power. He also underscores that India will gain more from a partnership with the US in the long run.
The second book is How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the 21st Century, by Shyam Sharan. Sharan was also a foreign secretary of India, from 2004 to 2006.
Sharan writes, “India must seek to align with other powerful states to countervail the main adversary. This would mean a closer relationship with the US, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, and Vietnam … all of whom share India’s concerns over China’s assertion of power in Asia.”
The conclusion from these books could be that these senior foreign-policy figures seem over-obsessed with China’s economic, military, and technological advancement. However, their views of the world and their country do not represent India’s current position.
This is not the time for India to rebalance China’s influence. India is not in a condition to counter China.
I also read three reports by credible international think-tanks and media and tried to work out India’s current position.
First, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) was jointly published on October 16 by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe using the score index calculated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Despite Indian strategists’ claim that India is an aspirant global power, it is at the bottom in South Asia except for war-torn Afghanistan in the GHI ranking.
The report suggests that countries listed. India shares the same rank as Sudan, in the red zone. That means India’s hunger situation is in the “alarming” category. India’s South Asian peers rank as follows: Sri Lanka 64, Nepal 73, Bangladesh 75, and Pakistan 88.
India is unable to feed its kids and yet dreams of being a global strategic player.
Second, I read a report by Andy Mukherjee in Bloomberg Business dated October 17. The headline is fascinating: “The next China? India must first beat Bangladesh.”
Mukherjee : “Ever since it began opening up the economy in the 1990s, India’s dream has been to emulate China’s rapid expansion. After three decades of persevering with that campaign, slipping behind Bangladesh hurts its global image. The West wants a meaningful counterweight to China, but that partnership will be predicated on India not getting stuck in a lower-middle-income trap.”
The third report I skimmed was published earlier but is still relevant. The Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) started to publish the World Inclusive Development Report (IDI) in 2017.
The WEF says IDI is designed as an alternative to GDP and reflects more closely the criteria by which people evaluate their countries’ economic progress. The suggested that India is again at the bottom. In the IDI ranking of 74 states in the Emerging Economies category, Nepal ranks No 22, Bangladesh 34, Sri Lanka 40, Pakistan 47, and India 62.
Besides, India, the world’s largest functional democracy, is not a role model for other countries in South Asia, even for its human-rights record. Amnesty International’s recent in India confirms this.
These reports show that India is neither comparable to the traditional superpower, the US, nor to an emerging superpower, China. It is also not equal to a middle-power country like Japan or Germany. It is not even equivalent to its immediate neighbors Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal in many development indicators.
India lags its South Asian peers. Therefore, India is not a role model in the South Asia region, either in economic performance or in socioeconomic development. Recently, South Asian countries have been looking to China with hope rather than India because of India’s poor image. A country with a lower socioeconomic development ranking cannot be a role model for higher-ranked countries.
Indian leaders’ and bureaucrats’ denials won’t work for India. The sooner India accepts that it lags far behind superpowers, middle-power countries and its immediate neighbors, the sooner it will start fixing its economy.
Hubris of being a global player may be useful for Indian leaders and officials but it won’t help the people.
India must stop the cacophony of strategic matrices like the Quad, the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and Malabar Drill because these things will not solve the “alarming hunger” of Indian kids. They also will not help in the socioeconomic development of India.
India must first develop into a US$10 trillion economy. Then, the global community will recognize its global ambitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elite in New Delhi delude themselves by thinking the country can hold its own on the world stage
by October 20, 2020
The perceptions of Indian political leaders and top bureaucrats about their country’s position in the world appear far removed from reality.
These elites appear not to be mindful of the republic’s fundamental purposes envisaged in the constitution. And they seem lost to their duty and function to the people.
Yet they want to attempt a massive task that is beyond their economic, technological, political, military and strategic capacity.
After I went through two books and three reports about India recently, I came to this conclusion.
The first was a recently published and slim volume titled The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. He had been in the Indian Foreign Service for more than four decades.
He became India’s external affairs minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term in May 2019. Modi also had made him foreign secretary in 2015 because of his pro-US foreign-policy thinking.
In his book, Jaishankar says India’s foreign policy carries three significant burdens from history. He writes:
“One is the 1947 Partition, which reduced the nation both demographically and politically. An unintended consequence was to give China more strategic space in Asia.
“Another is the delayed economic reforms that were undertaken a decade and a half after those of China. And far more ambivalently. The fifteen-year gap in capabilities continues to put India at a great disadvantage.
“The third is the prolonged exercise of the nuclear option.
“As a result, India has had to struggle mightily to gain influence in a domain that could have come so much more easily earlier. It is, of course, better that these issues are being addressed late than never. But greater self-reflection on our mistakes since 1947 would certainly serve the nation well. We could also extend that to the roads not taken.”
He also advocated taking the risk of going for an alliance with the US to rebalance China’s growing global power. He also underscores that India will gain more from a partnership with the US in the long run.
The second book is How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the 21st Century, by Shyam Sharan. Sharan was also a foreign secretary of India, from 2004 to 2006.
Sharan writes, “India must seek to align with other powerful states to countervail the main adversary. This would mean a closer relationship with the US, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, and Vietnam … all of whom share India’s concerns over China’s assertion of power in Asia.”
The conclusion from these books could be that these senior foreign-policy figures seem over-obsessed with China’s economic, military, and technological advancement. However, their views of the world and their country do not represent India’s current position.
This is not the time for India to rebalance China’s influence. India is not in a condition to counter China.
I also read three reports by credible international think-tanks and media and tried to work out India’s current position.
First, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) was jointly published on October 16 by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe using the score index calculated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Despite Indian strategists’ claim that India is an aspirant global power, it is at the bottom in South Asia except for war-torn Afghanistan in the GHI ranking.
The report suggests that countries listed. India shares the same rank as Sudan, in the red zone. That means India’s hunger situation is in the “alarming” category. India’s South Asian peers rank as follows: Sri Lanka 64, Nepal 73, Bangladesh 75, and Pakistan 88.
India is unable to feed its kids and yet dreams of being a global strategic player.
Second, I read a report by Andy Mukherjee in Bloomberg Business dated October 17. The headline is fascinating: “The next China? India must first beat Bangladesh.”
Mukherjee : “Ever since it began opening up the economy in the 1990s, India’s dream has been to emulate China’s rapid expansion. After three decades of persevering with that campaign, slipping behind Bangladesh hurts its global image. The West wants a meaningful counterweight to China, but that partnership will be predicated on India not getting stuck in a lower-middle-income trap.”
The third report I skimmed was published earlier but is still relevant. The Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) started to publish the World Inclusive Development Report (IDI) in 2017.
The WEF says IDI is designed as an alternative to GDP and reflects more closely the criteria by which people evaluate their countries’ economic progress. The suggested that India is again at the bottom. In the IDI ranking of 74 states in the Emerging Economies category, Nepal ranks No 22, Bangladesh 34, Sri Lanka 40, Pakistan 47, and India 62.
Besides, India, the world’s largest functional democracy, is not a role model for other countries in South Asia, even for its human-rights record. Amnesty International’s recent in India confirms this.
These reports show that India is neither comparable to the traditional superpower, the US, nor to an emerging superpower, China. It is also not equal to a middle-power country like Japan or Germany. It is not even equivalent to its immediate neighbors Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal in many development indicators.
India lags its South Asian peers. Therefore, India is not a role model in the South Asia region, either in economic performance or in socioeconomic development. Recently, South Asian countries have been looking to China with hope rather than India because of India’s poor image. A country with a lower socioeconomic development ranking cannot be a role model for higher-ranked countries.
Indian leaders’ and bureaucrats’ denials won’t work for India. The sooner India accepts that it lags far behind superpowers, middle-power countries and its immediate neighbors, the sooner it will start fixing its economy.
Hubris of being a global player may be useful for Indian leaders and officials but it won’t help the people.
India must stop the cacophony of strategic matrices like the Quad, the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and Malabar Drill because these things will not solve the “alarming hunger” of Indian kids. They also will not help in the socioeconomic development of India.
India must first develop into a US$10 trillion economy. Then, the global community will recognize its global ambitions.
What the article overlooks is the deeply disturbed psychological state of the elite, middle and lower middle class Indian masses, in the poverty stricken but politically influential Northern States.
The current media and political hype is to "undo 1947" , in other words to retake Pakistan militarily.
Comments in leading English language on-line newspaper editions are indicative.
Example: The recent expulsion of India from the Iranian gas field development has resulted in shrill demands for the Indian navy and marines to take over the gas fields, which is relatively easy because Iran's population is 83 million as compared to India's 1.3 billion.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Some of the best, most brilliant software engineers I have worked with are Indian and had degrees from Indian Universities - particularly IIT (Indian Institute of Technology - depends on the campus though, apparently it's like the UC system where only select campuses are high in quality). On the other end of the spectrum, it also seems most of the really bad software engineers I have worked with also tend to be graduates of Indian universities. In between, I have also known a great many in the decent / competent but not great range. On the other hand, during the times I've had to deal with offshore teams actually based in India, the quality of the software engineers were almost universally horrendous - I'm at a loss for how they were able to pass CS 101. I wouldn't generalize and say engineers from Indian universities are universally bad, because there are quite a few very good ones and many in between - same applies with any other country, including China and the US.
Not Quite:
There are two different narratives and it depends on which you want to believe.
" Capturing" and "Straying across " are two different scenarios.
Chandu Babulal Chauhan was captured ( India said he "strayed across) during the famous "surgical strike " of 2016 when India claimed
to have killed 1000 Pakistani troops in a single overnight operation in revenge for 20 odd Indian soldiers killed in a Kashmiri terrorist attack.
There was an interesting Bollywood blockbuster made on this incident called " Uri" which ironically does not mention Chandu Babulal Chauhan.
This poor boy's grandmother died of shock when she got to know her beloved grandson was in Pakistani custody.
Then of course there was Flt. Lt. Nachiketa who was shot down over Kargil in 1998.
I think China is far more mature than either Pakistan or India. It doesn't make the return of soldiers or POWd into media events.
Of course China doesn't have a daily media event like the Wagah gate spectacle either. China would rather not look ridiculous by such acrobatics.
- Status