Re: Ackowledging nepotism exists

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhana, It is a long e-mail. I did not like these very serious issues

being raised and then swept under the carpet. I note that you have referred to

this topic being aired previously in 2002, but I am not acquainted with the flow

of correspondences at that point. I believe it must have been unsatisfactory as

it has reared its head again.

I have commented on possible explanation for Ashok’s response in the ‘voice of

reason’ e-mail. Personal experiences may have been the same, but opinions as a

result of these experiences can differ. These opinions are what we need to seek

to move to the next level of resolution.

My use of the term ‘outsiders’ occurs at the outset of my e-mail, in reference

to the comments expressed by many in this forum. Some had expressed a ‘staff

children’ (them) against ‘outsiders’ (us) sort of scenario. A very silly

division, but used merely as a starting point of the discussion. As the job has

been done, there is no more need for me to use the word ‘outsider’ anymore. In

my e-mail on ‘inadequacy’, I have started as ‘once we are in we are all in’. We

are all part of the MGIMS fabric. We are all one, whatever be our point of

entry. And we cannot be divested of it, even if one ardently desires so. The

formative years of adulthood are ensconced with MGIMS.

I have my views on record as regards ‘offer of staff seat’ and that remains

unaltered.

I do not believe in the misuse of the term ‘sacrifice’. Why are you doing this

sacrifice? Did someone enforce sacrifice on you? No, I do what I do because that

is what I want to do. It is a decision of my personal choice and I don’t expect

anyone to pay or acknowledge my sacrifice. In most cases, the real sacrificial

lambs are the wife and children who sacrifice their desires and needs for the

ideals of the man in the house. [sadhana, even before you respond to this, I can

assure you that I am happy changing the sex of the ‘man of the house’]. I would

agree with Anshu on this matter, in a less extremist way. Generally, if one

finds one’s actions important and onerous enough to call it ‘sacrifice’, stop

what you are doing and move on. No one cares or needs to care about this

purported sacrifice. We all know the saying ‘no one is indispensable’.

I am in London on 24th and 25th, I'll try and come home. regards to the man in

your house.

cheers, Muthukumar (1985)

happybose2003 wrote:

Dear Muthu,

A very, very long email- difficult to read it all in one go. You

have summarised ALL the points raised in various emails and I agree

with teh general flow EXCEPT:points 3 and 16.

POINT 3:

Pray, why should offering mgims seats having nothing to do

with 'outsiders'- I am assuming you are calling of us 'outsiders'? I

did not know that having spent 8.5 yrs of my most crucial years in

MGIMS and carrying the label of MGIMS alumnus till I die means I am

STILL an OUTSIDER!!!! Every batch since its inception has suffered

from the effects of this 'largesse' of bahenji as you call it. Yes

nepotism exists in close knit systems but that does not excuse its

existence. What saddened me about Ashok's stand on this is his

refussal to accept its existence (which you as a faculty son-in-law

have valiantly acknowledged) and pursuing an alternative that 'all

staff children are born doctors'. How can I digest 'nepotism'

cloaked within layers of 'sacrifice' and 'denial of its existence'?

If people benefitting form this 'perk of the job' acknowledge its

exsistence and say - 'yes, so what'- then there is no issue. It is

like corruption in the general human (and more in Indian) psyche- we

all know every system is corrupt/ open to corruption and that is our

starting point. Also, only when it is acknowledged can one actually

move to teh next step of dealing with it.

I agree that the 'old gaurd' made certain personal compromises- not

sacrifices- because their primary motive was belief in bahenji's

dreams and not 'plum ug + pg seats sometime 10 years down the line'-

which as you rightly point out- did not happen to those who were not

politically inclined (we both know that one of our most loved and

highly respected teacher's wards did not make it to MGIMS). Every

one of us has had a parent/grand parent with stories of their

personal struggle and sacrifice during the early years of indian

independence i.e. 'sacrificed' personal goals for building the

nation - not just a few select doctors in s'gram.

The 50s - 70s were different times and people were driven more by a

sense of 'nation building' than 'selfish motives' but to constantly

thrust it down the throat of the rest of MGIMS's existence is not

fair to the memory of all those living and dead who put their duty

before self i.e. 'old guard'.

Sadhana'85

3. The offering of MBBS seat to staff children is not something

> for `outsiders' to discuss. It is a negotiated perk in the job

> contract and does not demean either the staff or their children.

Many companies offer this and more for retaining their talented and

> experienced staff. It is not right to directly equate this offer

as the sole reason for staff to stay on, as there are other

> considerations, both positive and negative.

>> Dr. Nayar.

> Regards, Muthukumar (1985)

------------------------------

Website: www.mgims.org

------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhana, It is a long e-mail. I did not like these very serious issues

being raised and then swept under the carpet. I note that you have referred to

this topic being aired previously in 2002, but I am not acquainted with the flow

of correspondences at that point. I believe it must have been unsatisfactory as

it has reared its head again.

I have commented on possible explanation for Ashok’s response in the ‘voice of

reason’ e-mail. Personal experiences may have been the same, but opinions as a

result of these experiences can differ. These opinions are what we need to seek

to move to the next level of resolution.

My use of the term ‘outsiders’ occurs at the outset of my e-mail, in reference

to the comments expressed by many in this forum. Some had expressed a ‘staff

children’ (them) against ‘outsiders’ (us) sort of scenario. A very silly

division, but used merely as a starting point of the discussion. As the job has

been done, there is no more need for me to use the word ‘outsider’ anymore. In

my e-mail on ‘inadequacy’, I have started as ‘once we are in we are all in’. We

are all part of the MGIMS fabric. We are all one, whatever be our point of

entry. And we cannot be divested of it, even if one ardently desires so. The

formative years of adulthood are ensconced with MGIMS.

I have my views on record as regards ‘offer of staff seat’ and that remains

unaltered.

I do not believe in the misuse of the term ‘sacrifice’. Why are you doing this

sacrifice? Did someone enforce sacrifice on you? No, I do what I do because that

is what I want to do. It is a decision of my personal choice and I don’t expect

anyone to pay or acknowledge my sacrifice. In most cases, the real sacrificial

lambs are the wife and children who sacrifice their desires and needs for the

ideals of the man in the house. [sadhana, even before you respond to this, I can

assure you that I am happy changing the sex of the ‘man of the house’]. I would

agree with Anshu on this matter, in a less extremist way. Generally, if one

finds one’s actions important and onerous enough to call it ‘sacrifice’, stop

what you are doing and move on. No one cares or needs to care about this

purported sacrifice. We all know the saying ‘no one is indispensable’.

I am in London on 24th and 25th, I'll try and come home. regards to the man in

your house.

cheers, Muthukumar (1985)

happybose2003 wrote:

Dear Muthu,

A very, very long email- difficult to read it all in one go. You

have summarised ALL the points raised in various emails and I agree

with teh general flow EXCEPT:points 3 and 16.

POINT 3:

Pray, why should offering mgims seats having nothing to do

with 'outsiders'- I am assuming you are calling of us 'outsiders'? I

did not know that having spent 8.5 yrs of my most crucial years in

MGIMS and carrying the label of MGIMS alumnus till I die means I am

STILL an OUTSIDER!!!! Every batch since its inception has suffered

from the effects of this 'largesse' of bahenji as you call it. Yes

nepotism exists in close knit systems but that does not excuse its

existence. What saddened me about Ashok's stand on this is his

refussal to accept its existence (which you as a faculty son-in-law

have valiantly acknowledged) and pursuing an alternative that 'all

staff children are born doctors'. How can I digest 'nepotism'

cloaked within layers of 'sacrifice' and 'denial of its existence'?

If people benefitting form this 'perk of the job' acknowledge its

exsistence and say - 'yes, so what'- then there is no issue. It is

like corruption in the general human (and more in Indian) psyche- we

all know every system is corrupt/ open to corruption and that is our

starting point. Also, only when it is acknowledged can one actually

move to teh next step of dealing with it.

I agree that the 'old gaurd' made certain personal compromises- not

sacrifices- because their primary motive was belief in bahenji's

dreams and not 'plum ug + pg seats sometime 10 years down the line'-

which as you rightly point out- did not happen to those who were not

politically inclined (we both know that one of our most loved and

highly respected teacher's wards did not make it to MGIMS). Every

one of us has had a parent/grand parent with stories of their

personal struggle and sacrifice during the early years of indian

independence i.e. 'sacrificed' personal goals for building the

nation - not just a few select doctors in s'gram.

The 50s - 70s were different times and people were driven more by a

sense of 'nation building' than 'selfish motives' but to constantly

thrust it down the throat of the rest of MGIMS's existence is not

fair to the memory of all those living and dead who put their duty

before self i.e. 'old guard'.

Sadhana'85

3. The offering of MBBS seat to staff children is not something

> for `outsiders' to discuss. It is a negotiated perk in the job

> contract and does not demean either the staff or their children.

Many companies offer this and more for retaining their talented and

> experienced staff. It is not right to directly equate this offer

as the sole reason for staff to stay on, as there are other

> considerations, both positive and negative.

>> Dr. Nayar.

> Regards, Muthukumar (1985)

------------------------------

Website: www.mgims.org

------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhana, It is a long e-mail. I did not like these very serious issues

being raised and then swept under the carpet. I note that you have referred to

this topic being aired previously in 2002, but I am not acquainted with the flow

of correspondences at that point. I believe it must have been unsatisfactory as

it has reared its head again.

I have commented on possible explanation for Ashok’s response in the ‘voice of

reason’ e-mail. Personal experiences may have been the same, but opinions as a

result of these experiences can differ. These opinions are what we need to seek

to move to the next level of resolution.

My use of the term ‘outsiders’ occurs at the outset of my e-mail, in reference

to the comments expressed by many in this forum. Some had expressed a ‘staff

children’ (them) against ‘outsiders’ (us) sort of scenario. A very silly

division, but used merely as a starting point of the discussion. As the job has

been done, there is no more need for me to use the word ‘outsider’ anymore. In

my e-mail on ‘inadequacy’, I have started as ‘once we are in we are all in’. We

are all part of the MGIMS fabric. We are all one, whatever be our point of

entry. And we cannot be divested of it, even if one ardently desires so. The

formative years of adulthood are ensconced with MGIMS.

I have my views on record as regards ‘offer of staff seat’ and that remains

unaltered.

I do not believe in the misuse of the term ‘sacrifice’. Why are you doing this

sacrifice? Did someone enforce sacrifice on you? No, I do what I do because that

is what I want to do. It is a decision of my personal choice and I don’t expect

anyone to pay or acknowledge my sacrifice. In most cases, the real sacrificial

lambs are the wife and children who sacrifice their desires and needs for the

ideals of the man in the house. [sadhana, even before you respond to this, I can

assure you that I am happy changing the sex of the ‘man of the house’]. I would

agree with Anshu on this matter, in a less extremist way. Generally, if one

finds one’s actions important and onerous enough to call it ‘sacrifice’, stop

what you are doing and move on. No one cares or needs to care about this

purported sacrifice. We all know the saying ‘no one is indispensable’.

I am in London on 24th and 25th, I'll try and come home. regards to the man in

your house.

cheers, Muthukumar (1985)

happybose2003 wrote:

Dear Muthu,

A very, very long email- difficult to read it all in one go. You

have summarised ALL the points raised in various emails and I agree

with teh general flow EXCEPT:points 3 and 16.

POINT 3:

Pray, why should offering mgims seats having nothing to do

with 'outsiders'- I am assuming you are calling of us 'outsiders'? I

did not know that having spent 8.5 yrs of my most crucial years in

MGIMS and carrying the label of MGIMS alumnus till I die means I am

STILL an OUTSIDER!!!! Every batch since its inception has suffered

from the effects of this 'largesse' of bahenji as you call it. Yes

nepotism exists in close knit systems but that does not excuse its

existence. What saddened me about Ashok's stand on this is his

refussal to accept its existence (which you as a faculty son-in-law

have valiantly acknowledged) and pursuing an alternative that 'all

staff children are born doctors'. How can I digest 'nepotism'

cloaked within layers of 'sacrifice' and 'denial of its existence'?

If people benefitting form this 'perk of the job' acknowledge its

exsistence and say - 'yes, so what'- then there is no issue. It is

like corruption in the general human (and more in Indian) psyche- we

all know every system is corrupt/ open to corruption and that is our

starting point. Also, only when it is acknowledged can one actually

move to teh next step of dealing with it.

I agree that the 'old gaurd' made certain personal compromises- not

sacrifices- because their primary motive was belief in bahenji's

dreams and not 'plum ug + pg seats sometime 10 years down the line'-

which as you rightly point out- did not happen to those who were not

politically inclined (we both know that one of our most loved and

highly respected teacher's wards did not make it to MGIMS). Every

one of us has had a parent/grand parent with stories of their

personal struggle and sacrifice during the early years of indian

independence i.e. 'sacrificed' personal goals for building the

nation - not just a few select doctors in s'gram.

The 50s - 70s were different times and people were driven more by a

sense of 'nation building' than 'selfish motives' but to constantly

thrust it down the throat of the rest of MGIMS's existence is not

fair to the memory of all those living and dead who put their duty

before self i.e. 'old guard'.

Sadhana'85

3. The offering of MBBS seat to staff children is not something

> for `outsiders' to discuss. It is a negotiated perk in the job

> contract and does not demean either the staff or their children.

Many companies offer this and more for retaining their talented and

> experienced staff. It is not right to directly equate this offer

as the sole reason for staff to stay on, as there are other

> considerations, both positive and negative.

>> Dr. Nayar.

> Regards, Muthukumar (1985)

------------------------------

Website: www.mgims.org

------------------------------

[Guest guest]

relative dyslexia and time constraints have prohibited me on reading your mail #

3 -- but hopefully this weekend i can get the job done --

its a pleasure to have someone in the middle -- after the unilateral tirade

against the 'old guard' and their progeny --

in this mail i liked the following parts most -- and would like to hilite them !

<<The formative years of adulthood are ensconced with MGIMS.>>

<<In most cases, the real sacrificial lambs are the wife and children who

sacrifice their desires and needs for the ideals of the man in the house. >>

so well said -- yet there was sacrifice involved on the part of the decision

maker -- probably sacrifice of the family's interests at the altar of personal

ambition and the 'dream of mgims' -- you are absolutely right that sacrifice

need not be remunerated -- but being acknowledged doesn't hurt anyone -- and

downright dismissing it very selfish !!

Finally -- 'bhagvad geetha does say : do a good deed and don't " expect " a

return'

also let me thank muthu, ravi, ameet and all who congratulated me on 'passing'

the recert exam.

with private practice and family resp. -- i have developed 'dy-exam-ia' in

addition to dyslexia and a.a.a.d.d. !!

have a blessed day,

asok '84

thillainayagam muthukumar wrote:

Dear Sadhana, It is a long e-mail. I did not like these very serious issues

being raised and then swept under the carpet. I note that you have referred to

this topic being aired previously in 2002, but I am not acquainted with the flow

of correspondences at that point. I believe it must have been unsatisfactory as

it has reared its head again.

I have commented on possible explanation for Ashok’s response in the ‘voice of

reason’ e-mail. Personal experiences may have been the same, but opinions as a

result of these experiences can differ. These opinions are what we need to seek

to move to the next level of resolution.

My use of the term ‘outsiders’ occurs at the outset of my e-mail, in reference

to the comments expressed by many in this forum. Some had expressed a ‘staff

children’ (them) against ‘outsiders’ (us) sort of scenario. A very silly

division, but used merely as a starting point of the discussion. As the job has

been done, there is no more need for me to use the word ‘outsider’ anymore. In

my e-mail on ‘inadequacy’, I have started as ‘once we are in we are all in’. We

are all part of the MGIMS fabric. We are all one, whatever be our point of

entry. And we cannot be divested of it, even if one ardently desires so. The

formative years of adulthood are ensconced with MGIMS.

I have my views on record as regards ‘offer of staff seat’ and that remains

unaltered.

I do not believe in the misuse of the term ‘sacrifice’. Why are you doing this

sacrifice? Did someone enforce sacrifice on you? No, I do what I do because that

is what I want to do. It is a decision of my personal choice and I don’t expect

anyone to pay or acknowledge my sacrifice. In most cases, the real sacrificial

lambs are the wife and children who sacrifice their desires and needs for the

ideals of the man in the house. [sadhana, even before you respond to this, I can

assure you that I am happy changing the sex of the ‘man of the house’]. I would

agree with Anshu on this matter, in a less extremist way. Generally, if one

finds one’s actions important and onerous enough to call it ‘sacrifice’, stop

what you are doing and move on. No one cares or needs to care about this

purported sacrifice. We all know the saying ‘no one is indispensable’.

I am in London on 24th and 25th, I'll try and come home. regards to the man in

your house.

cheers, Muthukumar (1985)

happybose2003 wrote:

Dear Muthu,

A very, very long email- difficult to read it all in one go. You

have summarised ALL the points raised in various emails and I agree

with teh general flow EXCEPT:points 3 and 16.

POINT 3:

Pray, why should offering mgims seats having nothing to do

with 'outsiders'- I am assuming you are calling of us 'outsiders'? I

did not know that having spent 8.5 yrs of my most crucial years in

MGIMS and carrying the label of MGIMS alumnus till I die means I am

STILL an OUTSIDER!!!! Every batch since its inception has suffered

from the effects of this 'largesse' of bahenji as you call it. Yes

nepotism exists in close knit systems but that does not excuse its

existence. What saddened me about Ashok's stand on this is his

refussal to accept its existence (which you as a faculty son-in-law

have valiantly acknowledged) and pursuing an alternative that 'all

staff children are born doctors'. How can I digest 'nepotism'

cloaked within layers of 'sacrifice' and 'denial of its existence'?

If people benefitting form this 'perk of the job' acknowledge its

exsistence and say - 'yes, so what'- then there is no issue. It is

like corruption in the general human (and more in Indian) psyche- we

all know every system is corrupt/ open to corruption and that is our

starting point. Also, only when it is acknowledged can one actually

move to teh next step of dealing with it.

I agree that the 'old gaurd' made certain personal compromises- not

sacrifices- because their primary motive was belief in bahenji's

dreams and not 'plum ug + pg seats sometime 10 years down the line'-

which as you rightly point out- did not happen to those who were not

politically inclined (we both know that one of our most loved and

highly respected teacher's wards did not make it to MGIMS). Every

one of us has had a parent/grand parent with stories of their

personal struggle and sacrifice during the early years of indian

independence i.e. 'sacrificed' personal goals for building the

nation - not just a few select doctors in s'gram.

The 50s - 70s were different times and people were driven more by a

sense of 'nation building' than 'selfish motives' but to constantly

thrust it down the throat of the rest of MGIMS's existence is not

fair to the memory of all those living and dead who put their duty

before self i.e. 'old guard'.

Sadhana'85

3. The offering of MBBS seat to staff children is not something

> for `outsiders' to discuss. It is a negotiated perk in the job

> contract and does not demean either the staff or their children.

Many companies offer this and more for retaining their talented and

> experienced staff. It is not right to directly equate this offer

as the sole reason for staff to stay on, as there are other

> considerations, both positive and negative.

>> Dr. Nayar.

> Regards, Muthukumar (1985)

------------------------------

Website: www.mgims.org

------------------------------