A little background, to start off. International business has many more challenges than just business fundamentals. The problems are numerous from price gouging, corruption, contradictory laws, inability to access premium fuel rates, problems in execution due to difference in delivery w.r.t promises, simple difference in perception on how to value "time", etc. As US businesses start working with rest of the world in the name of exports, imports or out-sourcing; there'll be several of these factors the business community will need to deal with globally.

This is one reason why I think any MBA syllabus' decision not to compare-n-contrast US Law with diverse International Law practices is an incorrect choice -- you can sometimes appreciate right/good only when you know how wrong/bad affects you. Same goes for US Accounting vs. International aspects of the same. Contrasting US Law, US Accounting, etc., with international practices either gives you appreciation of US business aspects, or provides food for thought on how our business environment can be further improved. Although some MBA courses drop the international part of business problems, as a part of SCU community, one can continue to learn about these issues lifelong. A few other SCU networks to engage in such diversity include: SCU IBN, SCU SAMBAN and SCU CABC.

To some extent, you'll play with fire, mess with drugs, be a jerk in relationships, or speed in your car if you haven't understood how/why it can be hurtful. Once hurt, you tend to be more careful. On the flip side, if you were never hurt and were kept away by "parental guidance", you'll not know why it is wrong in a new-age -- you'll just carry forward that it's "bad", "evil" or "wrong" without re-considering it. Such reliance on unquestioned biases creates resistance to exploration and change in a new age within a new environment where those challenges may simply not exist! See also: Humans learn only from Mistakes, Humanity from Disasters.

Reservation (or quota) in India is a "politically charged" topic. Read some info on this practice here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

While we are at it, another interesting, but contrasting, scenario is that of students/workers in France protesting on CPE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrat_premi%C3%A8re_embauche

MERITOCRACY

Without taking any side, but using only the business (or economic) bias, my view from my hill is that it is a market inefficiency. The key question to consider is: Is hiring (or firing) in the schools and business organizations based on merit? It seems, the bottom line of many of these issues is "merit".

Merit based human resources face two primary challenges: (a) merit based hiring practices, and (b) merit based retention. Both of these are difficult -- when merit based hiring fails, you have incapable or unwilling employees in your organizations; whereas when merit based retention (or lay-offs or "firing") fail, you have incompetent employees stagnating the organization and providing almost like a "breeding ground" for other kinds of incompetence. Going on those lines, if an entire nation doesn't have enough competency in a particular field, it sometimes becomes necessary to still aim for merit and performance instead of protectionistic job retention policies for citizens. The net essence is that economics is not run by a race or belief, but by action and work -- and a policy of "let the best guy win" to a job may be more stressful in finding and retaining the job, but plays out its benefits in giving back the best kind of products and services (aka., economic progress in terms of higher life style). See also how Progress Quotient can be employed to differentiate personal attributes with values that give a meaningful exchange/connection with others (and that also have a context of how good they are to the rest of humanity).

BUT, IS MERIT FAIR?

Choosing by merit means some people who are best at a task/trade win, while several others lose. Is it fair for these people to get a job, and the others to be without one -- in the name of merit? Where's the fairness in that?

To make these things simple, consider two jobs in your family. One of cooking food and one of sailing the family yatch/boat. If the family says, "Hey, we haven't asked this son of ours if he wants to do it, nor have we ascertained if he can do it; but just to be fair, let's give him our cooking chores. We know that our eldest daughter cooks the best food and loves cooking, but still." And when dinner is served, you'd be foolish to expect as good food as your experienced and willing daughter. Now being the best at cooking, you say, "Let me be partial to our daughter's honned skills [in cooking]. In the matter of sailing the yatch/boat, she's the natural choice because I love her cooking. She'll not fail me like that son of mine." You take away the control from the son and give it to your daughter. When need arises, you'll end up regretting having left your seasoned sailor son behind -- with a great cook unable to steer your yatch/boat.

The lesson? No, not that daughters should cook and sons should sail your boats -- let anyone who is best at something (in terms of skills/capabilities) and loves doing it (in that he/she is willing/passionate about it) lead your way in that domain. If you are concerned about fairness to others, reconsider if good healthy food and safe sailing are on your priorities or not as well!

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "LAND OF OPPORTUNITIES" AND "LAND OF ALMS"/"LAND OF CONCESSIONS"

In a land of opportunities, those who "lose" can try their luck at diversity of "other" jobs. If they fail to be the best at one, they can either try the next best company or try an entirely different field. (Of course, they are not beheaded for not being the best. See also: If ‘might’ is not right, why should Meritocracy be?) But all this time they themselves don't decide what they are best at, others tell them if they think they are. (If one is asked what they are good at, would they stop at claiming/thinking themselves being good at everything, unless they knew you'd evaluate them on it?) Working this way creates a distillation process of the best folks moving up, and the rest settling into the next best roles, and so on as time goes by. Picture this as a natural form of convection of values -- based on relevant criteria of merit in that domain. It lets the best people in their fields help us lead the helm in their domains.

In the land of alms, you are given a job as a gift or concession, thereby, playing down the fact that there's a responsibility to be fulfilled and a responsibility to best value/quality to the whole. It is not about cheapest labor or closest cousin that helps you churn out best results , instead it is the value to price ratio that others see in your work. Under the fairness measured by a "land of alms" law, you may then be given a wife as a gift too, thereby, playing down the importance of love and individual decision-making. Besides, such a system turns the people into objects and furniture. Fairness on these lines brings all people to the same level (i.e., to share a common level of "misery"), thereby keeping the entire society at a stagnated level.

I think it would be sad if everyone was brought down to the common denominator, with no exclusivity based on how much more they do for everyone else. I believe in collaboration and equality too -- but not without some scope of responsibility to fulfill the promise, ownership based on sustainability, liability to proven slacking, and rewards for exceeding the call of duty. Hence, the arguments of equal salary, equal rank and equality based merely on presence (either "attendance" or "warm body" physical presence) are actually unfair; while the arguments based on "exclusive degrees of freedom" as a reward for actions, goals accomplished and fruitful/heroic results [alongside an equal opportunity to gain those without any other bias other than merit to the society] are fair and sane. See also: Evaluating Performance in a Meritocracy.

Equality surely cannot mean everyone has a right to their Ferrari no matter what they do; instead it means that they have the right to their opportunity to earn it meritoriously -- by responsibly serving others.

You'll see that the same people that failed to succeed in a "land of alms" style community succeed in the "land of opportunities" run community -- and vice versa. That's because the hardworkers are suppressed in the "land of alms" to bring them to the common equal misery of others, and the slackers are suppressed in the "land of opportunities" to bring them to the common equal opportunity available to others (by merit). We then see why the so-called "losers" in one paradigm, who were constrained by the system of their land, succeed in another. To verify this in reality, you see lots of immigrants succeed in the western countries, and lot of westerners succeed in communities that almost compete in free-loading or slacking (along that culture's terms of "fairness"). Note that while one of those value systems creates a sense of time as a valuable resource, the other creates a sense of self-gratification no matter what one does (or doesn't) with their time, resources and opportunities.

- Kaleem Aziz.