šµļøāāļø#ZohoDebate #NorthSouthPolitics
TL;DR:Ā Zohoās Sridhar Vembu hit back at Mohandas Paiās claims that the central government ignores South India in development plans. Vembu insists that the AI Centres of Excellence were selected objectively, with many South Indians on the panel. However, the process remains unclear, raising concerns about democracy and transparencyĀ in decision-making.
šÆ What Went Down? Pai vs. Vembu
Mohandas Pai criticized the central government on X (formerly Twitter), calling out its "step-motherly treatment"Ā of South Indian cities in tech initiatives š¦. He questioned why Bengaluru, Indiaās tech capital, was excluded from the launch of new AI Centres of Excellence. Pai argued that the South deserves equal attentionāespecially given Bengaluruās key role in Indiaās IT industry.
Vembu responded, asking Pai not to inject North-South politicsĀ into these decisions. He explained that the committee selecting the centresĀ had many members from South India, including himself as co-chair. According to him, the final decision was based on merit, and the government didnāt interfere.
š Transparency or Just Talk?
While Vembu defends the panelās integrity, questions about transparency remain. If the selection process was fair, why not make the evaluation reports public?Ā Even if the committee included South Indians, the criteria for choosing IIT Delhi, Kanpur, and Ropar over IISc Bengaluru and IIT MadrasĀ are still unclear š¤. Democracy demands accountability, and keeping the process behind closed doors only fuels suspicion š.
š„ MediaFx Opinion: Open the Process, Earn the Trust!
This isnāt the first time government decisions have sparked regional tensions. Policies like mandatory HindiĀ and reallocation of parliamentary seatsĀ based on population have already created mistrust in South India š. If transparencyĀ is the goal, the government and panels like Vembuās must make their selection processes open to public scrutinyĀ š¢.
Indiaās development should benefit every region, and the best way to avoid suspicion is to publish reports and selection criteria. When decisions are explained clearly, people can believe in their fairness. After all, democracy thrives on trust and transparency.
Whatās your take? Should committees handling public initiatives share their decision-making processes? Let us know in the comments! š
