Is Ozler's puzzle not one for the middle-class?

I recently came across a paper (https://www.microsave.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Micro-entrepreneurs-and-Occupational-Hazard-1.pdf) that is co-authored by Stuart Rutherford (author of "The Poor and Their Money", a qualified architect, Chairman of SafeSave and an expert in microfinance) with Rahul Chatterjee (a development professional) and I would like to share my observations on the question 'Why do poor people prefer to settle for low-return employment?'

Before I do that, I would like to place on record that I am not a trained economist and therefore not qualified to speak authoritatively on scholarly economics papers. I am just an observer of life and I will forever be a student of life and in case I have made any errors in observation, please feel free to correct me.

Coming to the question on hand, I have observed that there are several angles to this. Do allow me to table them one by one:

1. There is a "Dharmic economics" angle that has been ingrained in most southeast Asian cultures by the Sanatana Dharma (the ancient way of life that people across the world call Hinduism). From Pakistan to Cambodia, the region had followers of the ancient way of life.

This way of life teaches us to be austere and frugal in every aspect of life. It teaches us to see divinity in everything around us and therefore when something fails or breaks down, replacing is the last thing on our minds. We believe in repairing and reusing before throwing anything away. This mentality is termed as 'middle-class mentality'. And we would see this attitude even amongst the most highly educated and wealthiest people in the region. So one can only imagine how it would be with the lower sections of the society.

The question therefore is 'how is this linked to earning and spending habits?'. We would be interested to note that in India (and I am sure it would be the same in the region as well), we always keep aside 20-25% of our earnings as saving for the future and we then try and live a comfortable life in the remaining 75%. 

AT THIS STAGE, I must highlight that this 'middle-class mentality' is vanishing here and there amongst some demographic groups, but it would never be completely erased from our psyche. Even a business tycoon who wants to buy a luxury car in India would consider its 'resale value'.

So, this "middle-class" mentality makes us quite comfortable in status quo.

2. Let me now talk about the philosophical angle. In the sub-continent, we have a very circular and cyclical concept of life. We believe that life is a constantly-turning wheel of destiny and depending on our karma (actions), our fate is decided. Do good and good comes back. Do bad and bad will return. Therefore we would notice that people in this region are neither too thrilled upon winning the lottery nor are they too disheartened when faced with a loss. 

When a person here wins a jackpot two thoughts run through his mind: 'well, I have sacrificed a lot in the past and this windfall is a result of my sacrifices' AND/OR 'I shouldn't be carried away by this because one day all this will go away'.

Similarly when a person suffers a setback (financial or otherwise), he tells himself: 'well, we brought this upon ourselves because of our misdeeds' AND/ OR 'don't lose heart as this is a test and things will turn in the future'.

How this affects our view on earning and spending is that we tend to be wary of windfalls or earning too much money. Why? Because we could get used to the new lifestyle and therefore our fall will be harder when it eventually happens. 

If we notice, India's economy is shielded from global recession mainly because of our conservative regulatory fiscal and economic policies.

AT THIS POINT, I must state that a lot of people in India feel guilty about being wealthy. Whether this is because of years of Nehruvian socialist policies or the two angles that I have mentioned, there are some interesting notions that arise in an Indian's mind when he sees someone like him earning a lot. These notions could be: 'he must be taking a bribe' OR 'he must be making some moral compromises' OR 'he must be a cheating his customers' and so on.

3. Then there is the professional caste angle. While there have been injustice meted out in the name of caste, when implemented properly in its right form, the caste system is a beautiful skill-based system of 'division of labour' and 'delegation of duties' that is followed across the world and in every office and organization.

So we have the fisherman's sons and grandsons pursuing the family vocation and excelling at it; the weaver's daughters and granddaughters become weaving poetry in thread and so on. 

How this affects the outlook towards money, career and earning is that there is a lot of familial conditioning that encourages people to do something that is now in their blood and part of their psyche. Of course there will be and are exceptions to this, but generally this is a common occurrence in this region.

This "known devil is better than unknown angel" mindset manifests itself into "known low-income career is better than unknown high-income career". In simple terms, this is risk management.

As a market researcher I have come across so many people in life who DO NOT want to take the next leap of faith. Examples:

1) A stand-alone road-side eatery owner who has been attracting millions of fans from across the city and even tourists doesn't want to consider opening multiple outlets, leave alone launching franchises. 

2) A freelance (self-taught) carpenter who has the skill and dedication and drive for excellence laughed away the thought of opening a store. I personally offered to design contemporary customized furniture which I know will sell. But he said he is happy with what he is doing.

4. The need money to earn money angle. Here I want to recall the lines of a song from an old Bollywood Hindi film titled 'Golmaal' (meaning hanky panky). The line is 'paisa kamaane ke liye phir paisa chahiye' which translates to 'I need money to earn money'.

This is like a chicken and egg conundrum. I would like to elaborate on this with a personal example.

I counsel unemployed graduates on career planning, self-improvement and related areas. Recently a young man who has topped his class approached me and after helping him make a proper resume, I shared his resume with a few of my contacts. When I began coaching him for the interview process I realized he doesn't even have a full-sleeved formal shirt or a pair of formal shoes which he could wear for his interview. He said he couldn't afford to buy them, leave alone travel to metros like Mumbai or Bangalore to attend interviews.

I am sure that there are a lot of deserving candidates across the region who are scared to dream and therefore stop dreaming because they cannot afford to dream.

In conclusion...
I believe that poor people tend to settle for low-return employment because:

• One... austerity and frugality (I call it dharmic economics) is ingrained in our psyche.
• Two... the what goes around, comes around' philosophy makes us wary of getting too rich.
• Three... the 'known low-income career is better than unknown high-income career' risk-management is at play
• Four... the 'need money to earn money' and 'need to be rich to stay rich' fact is at play.

That's all that I wanted to share. I hope this provides us and other researchers working on these areas some perspective on why people behave the way they do. In case I have erred in my observations, do correct me.

Marriage - the institution vs. marriage - the relationship

Let us begin with a confession (admission rather) about the motivation for writing this piece: observations and personal experiences. To that extent, this is an opinion. Hear me out.

Consider an association. Any association. By association I mean any situation where people come together for a purpose. The purpose could be anything: celebration of an event (a reunion); enjoyment (trekking trip, children playing together); employment (office); common goal (society, welfare associations, a team sport) or to be with someone (love, marriage). A lot is known about the what contributes towards the success or failure of associations. The variables include:

• Expectations of individual members from other members and managing the same
• Skills and capabilities of members and delegating responsibilities accordingly
• Interpretation and understanding among members of what is the association's goal and handling of the same
• Motivation of members to join, remain and contribute towards the association and sustaining these levels
• Expectations of individual members from the 'association' and managing the same

By far, from my observations and expectations, the single-most common reason for associations to fail has been a combination of the third and fifth points. Associations unfailingly fail when members of the association disagree on what is the purpose of the association or what is the reason for the association to exist. These differences in the interpretation on the very goal of the association leads to differences in expectations from the association.

Institutionalizing acquisition
It would be appropriate to start this part with the history, etymology and different definitions of marriage, which I believe, can be accomplished - adequately or inadequately depending on what and more importantly how less one learns - through the mind-boggling sources - ranging from the sublime to the frivolous - that are available.

One thing is for sure - no one knows for sure.

Anyway, moving ahead, a few intelligible patterns that one notices when speculating about the origins and evolution of marriage as a system or as an institution, one could suppose that before humans felt the need for the marriage there is no evidence of any sort of emotional attachment or between males and females. Once again, we really cannot say for sure that there was or wasn't any liking or preference. And that is because we don't have any evidence to show that they could or couldn't express their feelings. We have no idea whether they had any affection towards their partner before and beyond mating. We aren't saying that their behaviour was like that of snakes. What we are saying is that we really don't know how they behaved. 

Even if the male was protective about his female partner, did this protective nature exist before and beyond the mating act? We really don't know. And more importantly was this protective nature restricted to just one female? Or was it chiefly about defending one's territory and competing with other males for a larger pool of females to mate with? Was there love and affection and belonging? Really doesn't seem so.

But what is conspicuous by its absence in all this is the propertization of the female and her subsequent subjugation and acquisition.

Monogamy - Nature (prakriti) versus culture (sanskriti)

It should be safe to assume that culture came after nature. So the question is whether marriage is enforced, acquired, enforced, imposed behaviour and not necessarily natural behaviour. The question is whether marriage is a cultural practice of ensuring monogamy?

There are as many types of monogamy as there are species of animals. On one end we have the prairie vole and the hornbill that are ambassadors of life-long loyalty to their first mate. On the other end we have emperor penguins who are monogamous as long as their young needs care. On a lighter note the black widow spider and the female praying mantis bestow monogamy-immortality to their mates.

According to Wikipedia, "...Some researchers have attempted to infer the evolution of human mating systems from the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Several studies have reported a large amount of sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus, an evolutionary ancestor of human beings that lived between 2 and 5 million years ago. These studies raise the possibility that Australopithecus had a polygamous mating system. Sexual dimorphism then began to decrease. Studies suggest sexual dimorphism reached modern human levels around the time of Homo erectus 0.5 to 2 million years ago. This line of reasoning suggests human ancestors started out polygamous and began the transition to monogamy somewhere between 0.5 million and 2 million years ago..."

However, these studies remain controversial and inconclusive. 

Anyway, every one agrees on one thing: monogamy in mammals is rather rare, only occurring in less than 3% of these animal species. So it is safe to say that monogamy and 'marriage-like' behaviour is cultural and not natural.

A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago across the world (Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003)). Anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas found a strong correlation between intensive plough agriculture, dowry and monogamy. If the propertization of the female was wild nature, then its cultured, civilized version was the imposition of monogamy through the institution of marriage.

In other words, men 'settled down'. Without a doubt, humans moved towards monogamy driven by the need to 'settle down' and 'stop wandering about'. While this refers to an occupational and physical move away from a mobile hunting-gathering to a static cultivation, the reference to sexual 'settling down' and stop 'looking around' is unmistakable.

So much for the origin and evolution of marriage.

Institutionalizing a relationship

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially, legally and ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights (sexual, economic and social) and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity.

So we now have the society and the judiciary getting involved and dictating the terms of recognition.

On a lighter note I happened to read a forwarded definition of marriage:
"I love you so much that I will involve our relatives, religion, society, the courts and the police and make it nearly impossible for you to leave me"

At this juncture it is important to remind ourselves about the life-long loyalty of the prairie vole and the hornbill without the interference of other prairie voles or the existence of a hornbill court. This is another evidence of the fact that 'laws are irrelevant and ineffective with matters that exist in the realm of conscience'. No external factor can make or break loyalty. Something like monogamy or fidelity is a cultural aspect. Given that having multiple partners is a natural trait, being loyal to only one partner is exceptionally rare.

At this juncture we must also remind ourselves about 'Gandharva Vivaha' (instant marriage by mutual consent of participants only, without any need for even a single third person as witness), which was a socially and formally accepted form of marriage in ancient India. This is still prevalent across the world as cohabitation (commonly known as live-in relationships). While advocates of cohabitation champion the right to privacy and resist the involvement of others in their personal affair, opponents decry the perceived and alleged infidelity, immorality and imminent disregard of aforesaid rights and obligations and other legal and social complications as a consequence of dissolution of the cohabitation.

But it is evident that infidelity, immorality and disregard for rights are things that exist in the realm of the conscience and institutionalizing marriage has been an effort to prevent the same through deterrents. To what extent has marriage as an institution been successful in this regard is another topic for another day.

Institution or Relationship?

When I talk about love and arranged marriages I use an analogy to describe each. A love marriage is like linking two chains - each partner linked to each other with their families linked to only the respective partner. Compatibility need exist only between the partners.

On the other hand, an arranged marriage is like a zipper, where the partners' fathers, mothers, siblings are linked to each other. Frankly, this is the stuff of nightmares for relationship experts and behavioural scientists! It's like a relationship fault line running between two colliding family plates. Incompatibility anywhere along the fault line could build up massive stresses leading to disastrous shock waves and undo the entire fastening.

Having seen a few acrimonious divorces from close quarters I'm beginning to believe that the man doesn't divorce the wife nor does she divorce him. Rather they seem to divorce the institution of marriage itself. Therefore the question should not be 'do you like him/her?' but do you like marriage at all.

So what warrants discussion is whether marriage as an institution TODAY is one of the causes for destroying relationships - and not just of the married spouses but even that of their families? 

Is it time to gradually but surely dismantle 'marriage - the institution' to save 'marriage - the relationship'?

Personally I believe that any consensual relationship between two emotionally-healthy adults that is not based on coercion, exploitation, dependence or falsehood (including cohabitation or gay marriage) should be the business of no one except that of the two partners. Neither the society, nor even the families and least of all the court should have anything to do with the relationship as long as it is based on respect, love, truth and trust.

But, I still do respect marriage as long as it is between two people ONLY and based on respect, love, truth and trust. There is no doubt that marriage as 'a socially, legally and ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights (sexual, economic and social) and obligations' was constituted at a time and era when it was NECESSARY to protect the rights of less-empowered, less-educated women. 

But does TODAY's educated, aware, confident and financially independent woman need 'marriage as an institution' to define the contours of her 'marriage as a relationship'?

The objective, relevance and effectiveness of punishment

Foreword, prelude, disclaimer, pre-clarification, setting the context or whatever
This blog was motivated by the recent developments around the Salman case hit and run case. Truth be told, the seeds of this post and many more that is sure to follow in future were sown when the collective mind of the nation was gripped by the Kasab trial.

At present, this blog will read like notes jotted on the back of an envelope. And it is so. This is thought-in-progress. The thought - and the blog - are developing. So, until then. Read on. And comment. Thanks.

The post (draft no. 1)
I remember a line from Kevin Costner starrer: Robin Hood: Prince of thieves - "what do you do when the only way to uphold justice is to break the law"? The Indian legal system was created by the British and needless to say it was designed as a maze of statements to manipulate the situation and confuse the layman primarily to prevent justice from being delivered. Understandably it suited the British. But wily Indian politicians will not allow the system to change because it is a powerful tool that helps them get away with murder. What we need is justice and not law. And we dont need the police, lawyer or a judge to deliver justice. I am not talking about "kanoon ko apne haath mein lena". I believe in the power, supremacy and purity of human conscience. I believe that a guilty conscience is more effective than all the laws of the world put together. I believe criminals are not afraid of justice, they are afraid of laws. Criminals plead 'not-guilty' not because they are bad people. But they do so because they too dont trust the logic of law. Just for the sake of discussion - what did we achieve by hanging Kasab? Will that stop a jihadist who is anyway brain-washed to give up his life? On the contrary would justice have been delivered if Kasab was asked to take care of the elderly parents of a young man he killed? Coming to Salman's case, what do we achieve by meting out irrelevant punishments like imprisonment? Will that solve drunken driving amongst us? Question is, can laws do anything at all in matters that reside in the realm of the human conscience? Let us ask ourselves this - 'do we speak the truth because there is a law? Will we start lying if there is a law that prohibits speaking the truth? Or do we do so because our conscience says so?'

Addendum 1
What is a 'good' punishment? I recently attended a talk on 'environmental laws' delivered by an official of the 'Pollution Control Board'. When he was talking about punitive measures/ penalties I couldn't help wondering how monetary fines and imprisonment would help clean up the mess that the violator had made. For an erring business/ businessman, nothing would hurt more than a dent in its/his/her finances. So, at best the fine and imprisonment could be relevant deterrents. But after a violation has been made, what about the polluted water/ air/ land?

Therefore what should be the objective of punishment? Is it to simply give back a tit for a tat? Sort of an eye for an eye? Is punishment just a legal way of payback? Or can punishment be something else? Something other than a different way of hurting? Should punishment be something else?

Punishments have always been (and still are) designed to be a preventive deterrent (almost always), a predictive deterrent (sometimes) and corrective deterrent (rarely).

MBI and MBR – Welcome a new brand of MBA

Some people don’t make good managers and leaders primarily for two reasons – their management styles and their life philosophy. In this satirical article we shall identify the traits of such managers, why they behave like they do; what are the implications for employers and the society and how they can address these issues.

Although a lot of people pursue and secure an MBA qualification, the management they practice is MBI (management by ignoring) and MBR (management by reaction).

Management by ignoring

Whenever they are faced with a situation or a problem that needs their attention, their immediate response is to ignore it. Ignoring doesn’t mean lack of acknowledgement of the problem. It doesn’t mean lack of responsiveness. Of course the person would lend a patient ear and in most cases unnecessarily long periods of time to hear things out. But then this is followed by inaction. This inaction is shrouded and packaged under the veneer of ‘mulling over’ or ‘thinking over’. And this behavior is generally accepted and respected even because of the negative connotation associated with immediate response.

This brings us to a very important cultural belief about venerability and speed of response. Centuries of cultural conditioning have made some people associate slow speech with thoughtfulness. Depiction of sages in movies, teachers, advisors, religious heads and generally wise men in the media such as movies and other electronic media is proof of this belief. A wise man is not supposed to speak fast. Fast speech is perceived to be a sign of lack of contemplation. This stereotype is so strongly ingrained in the psyche of both the perpetrators and the audience that even the most uncouth politician gets rapt attention and awe-filled respect generally reserved for and deserved by erudite academics when he utters the most mundane statements in measured words interspersed with dramatic pauses. Histrionics at its best.

Indian dignitaries have taken this veneration for unhurriedness to a whole new level. Tardiness and unpunctuality has been honed into a fine art. Being late and slow becomes a medal or a hat that a person is supposed to wear as soon as he or she rises in life. As the level rises, the medals become heavier; the hat becomes larger.

Coming back to the practice of ignoring, the higher our manager or leader is in the pecking order, the more rampant; the more frequent and the more intense the ignoring becomes.

There is also another reason why such a manager or leader prefers to ignore a problem. And that has got to do with the cultural take on permanency of power. Democracy has meant that some leaders know that change or transfer of power is imminent – an undeniable fact of life. They know that they will have to relinquish their post and power soon. Soon enough for them to conveniently ignore the problem and allow it to fester until it becomes the next person’s headache. So, there is an ownership problem. Whether it is the executives in professionally-run corporations or ministers in the government or bureaucrats of the Administrative Services lack of ownership is evident.

The executive has the option of a job hop when the going gets tough; the bureaucrat has the specter of transfer; the minister has the luxury of elections.

For instance, family-run businesses have, are and will be the most stable and successful enterprises in India because the captain is not going to abandon his ship at the first sign of trouble.

The MBI syndrome is largely observed amongst those in top management.

Management by Reaction

Another interesting practice amongst some managers and leaders is reactive management. This sounds contradictory to ‘management by ignoring’ but it is not. ‘Management by reaction’ implies symptomatic treatment of the issue. It means the habit and practice of applying immediate quick-fixes without making any attempt to get to the root cause of the problem – a trait common among some managers and leaders.

This trait does not contradict but actually complements the ‘management by ignoring’ trait in as far as any balm and Band-Aid that makes the problem ‘go away’ in the immediate thereby buying time to ignore the problem is always welcome.

So when and why does such a manager or leader resort to reactive management and symptomatic treatment?

There is an interesting explanation for the quick-fix style followed by these managers and leaders. They have a very different childhood compared to children from other parts of the world. The immense importance placed by society on education has meant that as children they rarely enjoy their childhood and youth. The pressure from parents and teachers to secure higher marks has traditionally meant that some people spend the first two decades of their lives immersed in text books and tuitions and classes. This means that they never enjoy adolescence the way children in other countries do. Interactions with the opposite sex; sports all take a back seat. This has a psychological effect on them. This deprivation means that the unfulfilled desires remain dormant.

Added to this is the belief in some cultures that a good education is a ticket to a comfortable life. Higher the qualification, higher is the position that one could and should expect in life. This belief is not only constantly drilled into the child by the family from an early stage but is also constantly reinforced by teachers, peers and society at large. What this ultimately means is that highly educated people in every field make every attempt to secure the comfort that they have been conditioned to expect. And this means that these people associate the word position with power and authority and not with responsibility. The child is constantly lectured and made to believe that two decades of sincerity; discipline and hard work will buy them a lifetime of pleasure, power and paycheck.  By the time the person becomes a manager he would have sacrificed so much that he would have exhausted all his energy as well as intent to remain responsible. And this has a direct effect on his time management skills.

The notorious lack of time management skills is to blame for management by reaction. How this affects management skills is depicted by this illustration:

The non-Indian’s daily schedule

Arrive in office at	8:55 AM
Prepare a cup of coffee and get ready to begin work at	9 AM
Focus on work till	1:00 PM
Lunch break and socializing with colleagues till	1:25 PM
Get back to work at	1:30 PM
Work till and leave office at	5:30 PM
TOTAL WORKING HOURS	8 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN OFFICE	8.5 HOURS

 The Indian’s daily schedule

Arrive in office at	8:15 AM
Check personal emails and browse the Internet (Facebook etc), socialize with other colleagues (discuss politics, sports, movies) , coffee break till	10:00 AM
Start work at	10:00 AM
Work till	12:30 PM
Discuss lunch options till	1:00 PM
Lunch break and further socializing with colleagues till	2:30 PM
Get back to work at	2:30 PM
Take a coffee/ cigarette break at	4:00 PM
Get back to work at	4:30 PM
Focus on work till	8:30 PM
TOTAL WORKING HOURS	8 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN OFFICE	12 HOURS

This shows that some managers needs to make time every day to accommodate all those pleasures that he has kept suppressed all these years. The manager, who has ‘earned’ the position in life through sacrifices, cherishes his privileges a lot. He is now a free bird and values this new-found freedom. Problems and challenges are minor irritations that are best done away with. Enter the reactive manager. A quick-fix here so that he can go home early (it is already 8PM); a Band-Aid there until the problem gets solved by itself.

The MBR syndrome is more commonly observed amongst middle level managers.

Why does this mentality exist in the first place?

To understand this better, one has to understand the ‘chakra’ or cyclical philosophy. Amongst some cultures the cyclical nature of things is deeply entrenched. Some call it the cycle or play of karma. When an Indian wins a jackpot, he will definitely be thrilled immediately, but very soon his joy gets tempered down by the belief that his gain today was because he had a major loss earlier and/or his gain today could mean that he could lose this all tomorrow. The Indian’s response to a loss too is quite similar. When faced with adversity or a crisis, an Indian sooner or later rationalizes thus – this adversity is a punishment for something that he had done earlier and/or a crisis today definitely means relief tomorrow.

This fatalistic attitude means that Indians rarely or never internalize the issue and look within themselves, but blame external factors for their problems. They irrationally and inexplicably hope for some magic wand; hand of fate or stroke of miracle to make the problem go away.

What does this mean for all of us?

The writing on the wall is clear for different stakeholders.

For Indian parents –

-          Allow your children to have a happy, healthy, wholesome and natural childhood and adolescence.

-          Teach your children that the purpose of education is to perform one’s duty towards society and become responsible members of society

-          Do not promote two decades of education as sacrifice with a promise of heaven

-          Do not portray professions as destinations but as the start of a serious journey

For Indian society –

-          Start venerating people based on their punctuality and respect for time

-          Value people based on their responsiveness and not oratory skills

-          Do not settle for immediate benefits and short-term gains. Demand a permanent and relevant resolution to your problems

For corporations and governments –

-          Democracy is not always about fundamental rights. It is high-time that fundamental duties are enforced strictly in all offices

-          Convey clearly that jobs are not privileges, but responsibilities

-          Ensure that fatalistic philosophy of Indians does not percolate decision making amongst managers

Being good is unnatural, like being civilized

10 years ago, a relative mentioned that he recently attended a 'pravachana' in Bangalore. During the interaction that followed that lecture, he posed a question to the speaker - a spiritual guru - but did not get a satisfactory answer. The question was: 'If in the beginning, everyone was good, how did evil begin?'. My uncle did not elaborate on or explain the guru's response.

My reactions to my uncle's experience were varied:

One, I felt defeated because this question had been bothering since I was a 12-13 year old and I assumed then that I was the only person who thought about this and was waiting for the right opportunity and right person to pose this question to. In fact, after a few years I was convinced that nobody could answer this question and finally I would be the first one to do so. So naturally I was disappointed that not only I wasn't the only one thinking about this, but the cat was already out of the bag.

Two, I felt relieved that a burden was off my shoulders. Also, by then - I was 25 then - a bit of maturity had crept in with the knowledge that my knowledge was insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Three, I felt tempted to begin a debate with my uncle on the definition of 'satisfactory reply' on subjectivity. But then doing so would be self-defeating in the first place.

Four, I was bemused and a bit irritated that (in fact I still get irritated) people who attend seminars and conferences and lectures on some really complex and wide topics ask questions with the audacity that they are going to find a response. Moreover, the person answering the question too tries to defend himself. A brief argument ensues and ultimately everyone breaks for tea/ lunch/ dinner with the asker trying to gain a few points with his circle and the answerer doing the same at the other end of the dinner hall. The question and answer can go to hell!

Anyway, coming back to the topic of this post, I am now 36, more cynical, yet more clear in my thoughts than I ever was. My perspective has hopefully become wider and I believe that I am somewhat closer to finding some sort of an answer to the question. If anything, I have realised that it was a trick question - a question that tricked the asker himself! A question that appeared so right, so innocent on the first listening. A question, which itself needed to be questioned to get the right answer.

Last year I attended the monthly 'Sahitya Chavadi' at Kalasuruchi, Mysore. The topic was 'influence of Sanskrit on Kannada'. There were two parallel-discussions that caught my ear. One was the 'fact' that Sanskrit was the mother of all languages. The other was the mutual contribution between Indian languages and Sanskrit. I finally managed to express my thoughts on this and this is what I said:

One, that Sanskrit's motherhood is not beyond doubt. My analysis was this: if we go by etymology, Sans-krit would mean 'composite', 'formed by composite factors', 'refined'. To explain this, I gave the example of Pra-krit, which according to my limited knowledge would mean 'formed naturally', 'primordial' , 'original' or 'unpolished'. So, was Pra-krit the original and Sans-krit a composite result of modern influences?

Two, is it possible that Sanskrit was the English of the past? In other words, just like the English language has borrowed so much from so many languages and in the process not only enriched itself, but also got a bit 'Indianised', 'Arabised', 'Japanised'.

My argument was this: Sanskriti (culture) is refined, composite and modified while Prakriti (nature) is raw, primitive and pristine. Similarly, Sanskrit as a language can never be the mother of all languages. That title belongs to Prakrit. Sanskrit's surely has a relationship with other languages - Sanskrit is a child born of Prakrit and brought up by other languages belonging to the Indo-European family.

How is my Kalasuruchi experience related to the topic of this blog? Well, I consider anything associated with civilization and culture to be recent, refined and composite - something like an acquired taste or acquired habit. Anything associated with nature is primordial (even primal), primitive, ancient and virgin.

Therefore behaviour like carnality, incest, fratricide, patricide, greed, selfishness are all basic, primal, natural forces.
Behaviour like etiquette, monogamy, temperance, selflessness, humanity are all refined, recent and acquired shields.

Although I would never ever condone laziness, tardiness, dishonesty, I ask the following questions - mostly to myself:
Is civilization a double edged sword? Is being civilized attractive in the short term, but disastrous in the longer run?
Is culture and civilization harming man and the nature in which he lives by forcing him to behave in an unnatural way?

As a trekker, I constantly interact with like-minded trekkers, most of whom have admitted feeling safer in the jungle than in our cities. Truth be told, even the most ferocious wild animal is not only extremely elusive and shy, it would never harm, leave alone kill, without an extremely compelling reason. Unlike humans.

So, are we increasingly becoming dangerous creatures by suppressing our natural instincts? We all know how a repressed child (who is not allowed to express his or her spontaneity in childhood) would evolve into an extremely violent psychopath or a total misfit as an adult.

Recently I read an article in a newspaper on how the French enjoy healthier marriages because they allow their spouses some freedom to enjoy an extra-marital affair. Their rationale being that humans are promiscuous by nature. A little physical intimacy beyond marriage goes a long way in smoothing frustrations and adding the little bit of spice and diversion that would ultimately strengthen the bond of matrimony.

Anyway, as always I hope I have raised questions.

The employee's chinta is not money

Case 1: An MBA institute that has consistently commanded respect for over a decade from not only students, but also from companies and other institutes. Students, faculty, directors have come and gone over the years, but the non-teaching staff (accounts, admin, library, gardeners, maintenance) have more or less stuck on. The commitment, courtesy and competence of the non-teaching staff has to be experienced to be believed. I am yet to see this level of professionalism in the corporate world. Something innocuous happened in the summer of 2011. It was vacation time, but the institute was working as usual. A few staff members decided to regularly play badminton in the institute's excellent sports center between 4 and 5 pm. Their ethics ensured that work (if any) was not affected by their pursuit. However, the institute's 'think tanks' took offense against this and issued a ridiculous circular as follows - "All staff members are hereby informed that they should not visit the sports center during working hours (9 am to 5 pm). Also, the sports center shall be closed duly at 5 pm)".

The commitment and loyalty of the staff has dramatically reduced after this incident. Almost every member who would happily come to work at midnight or work extra hours during events without extra pay now reluctantly stay back even for an hour after 5 pm.

Case 2: This happened when I was employed with an Indian company at Bangalore. For a research project I needed a statistical software installed on my PC. There are specialist analysts who would normally work on the software, but on this project I needed to run some analyses by myself. So I met the SysAd guy and told him what I wanted. He agreed. After an hour he called me and apologised for not being able to do what I needed. His boss had seen him with the installation CD and demanded to know what he was upto. When the SySAd guy told him the story, he was asked to ask me to ask my boss to send a requisition. I asked my boss who asked me to write the requisition which he would forward to the IT boss as 'approved'. So far, so good. After an hour when I checked on the status, the IT boss said he had received the approval, but he was unable to act on it as it was supposed to be routed through the office administration manager. I forwarded the mail to the office manager and also called him to say I have sent the same. After a couple of hours with no CD, I went up to the office manager and it was only then he checked my mail promising to get the work done. In the evening, when I checked again the office manager said that according to company policy, researchers were not allowed to install this software on their systems.

I left the company shortly after and joined another company overseas where upon a casual mention to my boss about my need for a dedicated printer at my desk resulted in the IT guys setting it up within an hour.

These two incidents should highlight the fact that employee commitment, employee happiness, employee eagerness to work doesn't depend on monetary benefits alone. In fact I believe salary and 'commitment', 'happiness', 'eagerness to work' are very poorly correlated. I am sure there will be quite a few studies with statistical proof endorsing this theory. I also believe that what employees need, want and appreciate is an environment where they 'feel like working'. Do not mistake 'feel like working' to be 'comfortable' or 'non-competitive' or 'easy' or 'non-demanding'. By 'feel like working', I mean where internal clients, colleagues, support staff and admin staff create an environment that can facilitate employees to work better. Make no mistake again. By 'facilitate', I do not mean comforts like central air-conditioning or fresh flowers on every desk. Neither am I referring to gimmicks like 'employee of the month' or 'office picnics'. In fact, in an earlier article titled 'Rise in Attrition: Is Work Culture Responsible?', Advancedge MBA, Dec 2004, I had vehemently opposed imposition of non-work related group activities like going for an office dinner, office party on unwilling employees. I had talked about how organizations evaluate an employee on whether he 'belongs' rather than whether he 'delivers'. Work culture rules are being set and measured more at pubs and cigarette shops than at work. Coming back to the present issue, by 'facilitate' I am alluding to everyday rules, regulations and policies that can either make or break an employee's day.

Not for a moment am I talking about discarding regulations and discipline. I am a vociferous proponent of a structure and control. But, provided they are sensible, logical and just. An employee shouldn't find himself uttering the words , 'the only way to uphold justice is to break the law'!

But senior management, policy makers and HR managers need to seriously look at the way we function. There is a need for some deep introspection on the objectives of certain procedures, effect of procedures on efficiency, happiness and eagerness to work. The staff of the institute later admitted that they would never dare let official work get affected by their break and that they would have willingly stayed back for an hour even without being asked. They didn't have to tell me. I know. I would have done the same thing myself.

Senior management, policy makers and HR managers need to understand quickly that employees are people with emotions and thoughts. They are mature decision makers and except for a few bad employees here and there, the majority love to work. Indian managers need to set aside their ego and get out of the mold of 'ruling' and 'controlling'. Power is meant to facilitate and not to restrict.

Dont focus on customer happiness. Focus on employee happiness - they will take excellent care of your customers for you.

Why I dont support the prevalent anti-corruption movement?

Mistake: "This is a very good way to teach those politicians a good lesson"
First of all, I am against this whole emotion and attitude of "us versus them". Let me clarify once and for all - politician is not equal to corruption! Politicians are not some aliens from some other planet. They are us. They have come from us. They are not different from us. Politicians are just the fruits of a polluted earth. We are the earth. Corrupt politicians are just an effect/ a symptom. The root cause/ disease is something else. We need to address the root cause. Honest politicians arise from honest people. Corrupt people give birth to corrupt politicians. Why only politicians? Corrupt people will give rise to corrupt teachers, corrupt managers, corrupt sportsmen, corrupt youth, corrupt parents... I can go on and on. A child that lies at home, will grow into a teenager who cheats in exams... who will break traffic rules as an adolescent... who will give and take bribes as an adult.

The current movement seems to all about targeting politicians. That's why I don't support this movement.

Mistake: "CWG, 2G, Adarsh, Illegal Mining, Land Scam are examples of how corrupt we've become"
Secondly, the current movement seems to linking money with corruption. Allow me to express my utmost disappointment with this chain of thought. Corruption is not monetary alone. And even if it were, then the money yardstick that categorizes corruption as bribe (Rs.100), corruption (Rs.100,000), scam (Rs.100,000,000) itself is self-defeating. Corruption is corruption. There is nothing like pardonable offense and punishable crime.

- An MBA student who plagiarizes on an assignment is corrupt!
- A woman who drives her car on the wrong side of the road to avoid a U-turn is corrupt!
- A father riding a scooter who hands over his helmet to his kid for use only when a cop is around is corrupt!
- A person who breaks a queue anywhere is corrupt!
- A person who uses influence to get a job is corrupt!

None of the above have anything to do with a money transaction. But they are all very commonly observed and experienced examples of a corrupt mind, a corrupt society. There are millions of such non-money-related examples of corruption. And almost all of them start at home, at school, on the road, in college, in office. Opportunities! Opportunities! Opportunities!

Each and every such incident described above is an opportunity if you ask me. A wonderful opportunity to correct ourselves, our kids, our friends and our parents. Let us not forget that every Kalmadi, Reddy and Raja began their 'tryst with destiny' with a simple lie, a simple theft, a simple violation. And at every inflection point, someone who could have made a difference, didn't. Opportunity Lost!

The current movement seems to be completely off-track on this point. That's one more reason why I am disappointed with it.

Mistake: "Candle-light vigil, motorcycle rallies, black bands on arms are the need of the hour"
The third frustrating aspect is that of methodology adopted by those who support the movement. We seem to have picked up how to protest (and also how to protest protests) from the British Raj. It probably made some sense then to pelt stones, resort to arson and burn post-offices because it was their property. It is absolutely ridiculous to do the same now. The same goes for hunger strikes and roadblocks. On the same note, it probably was justified then to arrest, lathi-charge and jail protesters because they were them, it is unacceptable now.

What everyone - including those who participate in candle-light vigils and block traffic, who take out motorcycle rallies without wearing helmets, who gather in squares and bunk classes - know deep in their hearts, but do not want to admit it is this - it is a new-found fad to get a seal of honesty on their incorrigible conscience. It is akin to someone lowering their Mercedes' window pane to drop a one-rupee coin into a beggar's bowl at a traffic signal. It is analogous to a corrupt politician donating a million rupees to a temple. Such symbolic acts are meaningless like humiliating your father every day and then sending him a 'Happy Father's Day' card. A good man, who has a good conscience need not pray before god.

The leaders of the current movement should have strictly forbidden this public tamasha and should have requested their supporters that if they truly support the movement then they should sincerely attend classes, work sincerely in offices, conduct business honestly.

The current movement doesn't seem to be thinking on these lines and therefore I am saddened by the route it is taking.

Mistake: "The Jan Lokpal Bill should be tabled in parliament"
Finally, In a twisted, dark, funny sort of way, I try to visualize how the perpetrators and masterminds of terrorism might be rolling on the floor laughing when they hear statements like "Hum ati kathor shabdon mein is nirdayi hatya ki ninda karte hain" (We condemn this heartless act in the strongest words)
And I also try to imagine what a would-be suicide-bomber or terrorist thinks about "strong anti-terrorism laws".

The biggest misfortune of humanity in Kaliyuga is that we believe that laws are needed to enforce morality, ethics and values. Laws cannot and should not be resorted to address issues which dwell in the realm of the conscience and which are sown, nurtured and developed by upbringing. Let me ask this to each one of you: " Are you honest because of a law? Or are you honest because your conscience doesn't allow you to lie? If tomorrow there is a law banning truth, will that stop you from speaking the truth?"

I remember reading a distraught mother's letter in the agony-aunt column of some magazine where she has expressed her helplessness in imbibing "Indian values, morals and culture" in her 10 year old son despite sending him to Ramayana and Mahabharata sessions every weekend. All the poor lady had to do was to lead by example. Sad. Truly sad. We expect our children to appreciate, accept and assimilate behavior which they don't get to see at home! What can we expect of them when they become politicians? Laws? Bill? Somehow I don't see the relevance. Frankly. You see, when the prescribed medicine is wrong, of what use is the discussion on dosage, timing, duration etc? When you wrongly believe that a law is the remedy for corruption, what is the use of fighting over versions?

If at all something needs to be done, then...
- We need protests and agitations in our homes and hearts. Not on the streets.
- We need to target ourselves - as parents, teachers, human beings. Not politicians.
- We need each one of us to do our duty/ job sincerely, on time, every time. We don't need slogans/ banners/ candles.
- We need honest, moral, ethical parents at home, teachers in school. Automatically we will get honest, moral, ethical politicians in government.
- We need a pro-honesty movement. Not an anti-corruption movement.

As a parting note, I recommend you all to watch Manoj Night Shyamalan's (flop?) movie "the Village". If that's too much, then at least try and recall the story of the boy who stole a classmate's pencil, but his mother ignored it only for the boy to grow up into a criminal in later life. I'm sure we all heard this story as kids. But it is now that we should understand it.