A Quote by N. R. Narayana Murthy

All developmental activities for the common man such as education, healthcare, shelter and food distribution should be handled by reputed private sector institutions. It should be a competitive market in order to prevent the formation of monopolies.
And invention must still go on for it is necessary that we should completely control our circumstances. It is not sufficient that there should [only] be organization capable of providing food and shelter for all and organization to effect its proper distribution.
I believe that "government", as we know it today, should pull out of most things except for law enforcement and justice, national defense and foreign policy, and let the private sector, a "Grameenized private sector", a social-consciousness-driven private sector, take over their other functions.
The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education.
Nature has poured forth all things for the common use of all men. And God has ordained that all things should be produced that there might be food in common for all, and that the earth should be in the common possession of all. Nature created common rights, but usurpation has transformed them into private rights.
The real fight is about what should be in the marketplace and what should not. Should education be a marketable commodity? Should healthcare?
I believe the private sector and small businesses drive our economy, and that means the federal government should work to ensure the private sector is as robust as possible.
I favor a system where students in publicly funded institutions make a commitment: if they do well in the private sector, they will revert a certain percentage of their income to the education sector; and if they devote some years to public service, their debt will be forgiven.
No one should ever be forced to choose between food and education, or medicine and shelter when they don't have the resources. It's very unfair.
No university ought to be merely a national institution....The universities should have their common ideals, they should have their common obligations toward each other. They should be independent of the governments of the countries in which they are situated. They should not be institutions for the training of an efficient bureaucracy, or for equipping scientists to get the better of foreign scientists; they should stand for the preservation of learning, for the pursuit of truth, and in so far as men are capable of it, the attainment of wisdom.
There is definitely a need for increasing capacity in higher education; a large part of this is being met in the technical education segment by the private sector and in the non-technical by the state sector. In the public sector, we will do whatever we can afford.
Education Proceeds ultimately from the patterns furnished by institutions, customs, and laws- If the patterns of institutions, customs, and laws are broken for this philosophy education should fix itself. There should be several different things taught instead of one "Supreme Factor".
Healthcare as a human right, it means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade-school education if they so choose it, and I think no person should be homeless if we can have public structures and public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.
The private sector must play a role in ensuring the prosperity and health of the people who comprise its market. It is time for the private sector to become a proactive partner contributing to the efforts of governments and philanthropies.
Where the private sector, or anyone else, has skills, knowledge and resources that can help to deliver a high quality of education and to raise standards, we should use them.
Students at residential universities often live together and spend time on activities that aren't connected with the university. Then, should the university's rules about sexual consent extend to students' private lives? In my book, I argue that these narrow rules should extend to students' private lives no matter what or where they happen to be conducting those lives. The logic is that sexual assault is a form of discrimination and denies the victim an equal education. The point of university life is to get that diploma and nothing should stand in the way.
The private sector doesn't sit around and say - 'Well, since the president said we should do this, we should do it.'
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!