Hello Nikhil S. Gurjar,
Nice to see another thought-provoking thread from you after quite sometime.
To begin, I wish to 'REPEAT' Dinesh's comment--when did you relocate to US?--since you haven't answered it :-)
Coming to the core topic of your thread--"poor knowledge levels in general"--I think a LOT depends on one's definition of "knowledge". For a HR professional, it can vary from the knowledge of HR philosophy to practices to theoretical base....and so on TO the Broader/Larger picture of the organization.
To take the Hiring function, many [if not all/most] recruiters focus on the Key Words of the positions they get from the Line managers for filling-up. How many would give a thought of "why is the manager asking for this skillset combination & why not another for this position"? Not many I guess. And that attitude of probing/analyzing the inputs they get comes ONLY if he/she keeps the larger/broader organizational perspective in mind AND works to make his/her personal/individual contribution to the WHOLE Process.
I have had quite a few experiences where we end-up writing the JDs on behalf of the recruiters [MNCs included] & suggest them to get clearances from the Tech group before WE begin our candidate sourcing. It's as though the 'learning process' for such recruiters just stops once they join a job. The standard response from most such recruiters would be: I am very busy to think of such aspects.
Now, from the perspective of the technical groups or management, would such a recruiter command/invite any professional respect?
Let's take the Core HR functions--like Policies, Compliance, etc. Many HR executives recommend within the company to adopt a particular policy since OTHERS in the industry follow it--without much thought to 'would this suit our company [with the given set of limitations & strengths, that are different from other companies]?' And when would he/she be able to do such an exercise--or at least a semblance of it? ONLY if he/she has some/an idea of the LARGER/BIGGER context in which their Organization operates in--for which some effort from his/her end is DEFINITELY imperative, but lacking, in a general context. In such a situation, why or how would the management give weightage to that HR person--which is presumed 'due' but very often ignores the 'deserving/undeserving' aspect of the relationship.
I recollect a Saying here: "When you point one finger @ others, remember that the other 3 fingers are pointing @ you".
In short, I guess it's more of an opportunity for self-introspection than castigating or deflecting @ others. This is NOT to say that there wouldn't be exceptions--there would be companies that may not give 'due' respect or credit to HR, however much he/she keeps the larger perspective before suggesting anything for the company's benefit. But, that's life I guess.
Not sure how many would agree with this view of the topic.
Rgds,
TS