Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Engineers maligned

By P.V. Indiresan

Engineers need not be offered more than what they deserve, but it would be not only just but wise to give them their due.

A.P.J. ABDUL Kalam is President of India. Undoubtedly, his selection has caused deep misgivings both among a section of politicians and the media. One objection that has been repeated ad nauseum is that Dr. Kalam is only an engineer. Few of those critics have paused to ponder that such an objection is an insult to the engineering profession.

Few politicians command much respect these days. Yet, if media comments were to be believed, when it comes to the highest position of honour in the country, barely literate, even shady politicians are to be preferred to successful engineers. That reveals a contemptuously low opinion of engineers.

Why is it that virtually every youngster would love to enter an engineering college, and yet, why do so many abuse the profession the way they do? Probably, that is because every engineering advance comes with two unavoidable defects: One, it makes existing practices obsolete, and hence destroys the careers of those who have invested a lifetime in acquiring those skills. Such losers are naturally made unhappy. Two, every engineering advance disturbs the environment. That raises the hackles of the conservationists who believe in Ram Rajya, who have a religious faith that the past was better than the present.

It is a simple shift from opposition to dislocations caused by engineering advances to suspicion about the character of engineers. In addition, it is safe to abuse engineers. As a class, they are tongue-tied. Their communication skills are very poor. Have you ever heard of an engineer being invited to a discussion or debate by the media? Engineers are never asked to present their point of view but others are brought in to do so on their behalf.

It can even be said that this contempt for those who have the skill to make things work goes back to historical antiquity. Even in ancient tribes, the artisan had a status lower than that of the priest, the soldier, and the merchant. That is how our caste system too is organised. However, there is a telling shloka in the Bhagvad Gita where Krishna says: Utsodeyurime lokaan na kuryaam karmached aham (These worlds will be ruined if I were not to perform my task). Krishna was a producer of milk, and in his time, milk production would have been the technology with the highest value addition. For that reason, Krishna must have been an advanced engineer for his times. The principle of what he said, the vital importance of productive work, remains true to this day. If engineers were to cease to perform their tasks using the latest technology the world would indeed be ruined.

Sadly, Dr. Kalam suffers from a double jeopardy. One, many of those who are sponsoring him are genuinely detested. Their evil image rubs off on him too. Two, the idealists who dream of Utopia are convinced that engineering is the invention of the devil. That has made Dr. Kalam doubly evil in their eyes.

Many of these critics have latched on to the remark made by him that nuclear weapons prevented a war between India and Pakistan. We can never be sure whether the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides prevented a war or not. Either way, that is a matter of conjecture, not certainty. Let us consider the alternative. Suppose Jawaharlal Nehru had not established the Atomic Energy Commission. Would that have guaranteed that Pakistan would have done the same? Like the Gujarat Chief Minister, our good people believe that all actions are reactions to something else. If they had studied engineering, they would have realised that is not true. Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear capability is not necessarily a reaction to our efforts. Just as we started atomic research on our own, Pakistan too could have done the same. Nothing that we could have done on our side of the border would have prevented Pakistan from acquiring nuclear capability.

Then, as ardent pacifists want it, suppose we had no nuclear capability at all but Pakistan had as much as we have today. Would that have prevented a war with certainty, at any rate with greater certainty than at present? We cannot answer with any assurance either way. However, this much we do know for fact. Since the dawn of history, India's military capability has been inferior to those of our neighbours in the West. That was true in Alexander's time, when the Pathans came, when Babar invaded us, and when Europeans of various nationalities crept in. Each time we had to fight a war not by choice but by compulsion. Each time we lost, and lost badly allowing the invading victor to ravage our country. With what certainty can we now say that history will not repeat itself? What assurance can the good people give that Pakistan will not arm itself with nuclear weapons if we do not? What guarantee can the pacifists give that, even when Pakistan has nuclear superiority, it will not attack us, will not subjugate us?

Once again, all these questions are matters of surmise. In that zone of uncertainty, what should we do? The apostle of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi himself has given the answer. In 1947, when the Indian Army was sent to defend Kashmir, he was asked how he could condone such a violent response. He wrote that the principle of non-violence could not be the rule for Governments. Those who denigrate our engineers for developing nuclear defence would do well to think again. They can, and should advocate non-violent policies. Every Indian, and every human being, should avoid weapons of all types, not only those of mass destruction. Yet, that rule cannot apply to Governments.

On the face of it, this argument would appear self-contradictory. That is because few people understand nature. It is a fundamental axiom of the mathematics of nature that what is true for the constituent is not true for the aggregate, and vice versa.

What is good for us as individuals is often not good for the Government. That is why we need laws, which, by definition, are restrictions on individual freedom. Likewise, what is good for the Government is not always good for individuals. That is why we have to make sacrifices; we need patriots.

Instinctively, engineers understand and appreciate these limitations because they work with the immutable laws of nature. Social scientists rarely comprehend these nuances of immutable logic because they deal with manmade laws that are changeable, that are often whimsical. So, they often advocate impossible ideals; engineers always stick to what is possible.

If all of our politicians were to go on leave for a month, it is probable that little harm will be done. If our engineers were to cease work even for one day, this country will come to a grinding halt. Engineers need not be offered more than what they deserve, but it would be not only just but wise to give them their due.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Kashmir and the international community
• An indefensible move
• Divide and rule
• Engineers maligned
• The third thorny phase
• Bad blood
• Unwarranted
• Real intentions
• Change in LTTE
• Enhance deposit limit
• Disinvestment money
• Repatriation of funds
• Film censorship
• No Nature, no tourism

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu