The most urgent constitutional amendment that India needs to retain its identity, unity and dignity

If there is one constitutional amendment that is most urgently needed in India, it is this:

"Only home-grown regional parties can contest state assembly elections. No national-level party that has ruled the central government, with or without securing a majority in the Lok Sabha, or has active political presence or political participation in more than 1 state will be eligible to contest or field candidates in any state assembly election"

Such an amendment will ensure and maintain a healthy federal structure of India. It would also ensure that the cultural identity, heritage, language, customs & traditions including indigenous religious practices, cuisine, art, music and dance forms of every state is protected and nurtured. Protected from the direct or indirect efforts of ultra-nationalistic parties who believe in a misplaced, misinformed, illogical and fascist idea of one-India, one-language, one-religion and would waste no efforts to impose it on the vibrant, varied but vulnerable states. Nurtured by the local populace of the state who would have an inherent love, understanding and respect for their state's language, cultural identity, heritage, customs and traditions.

Unlike the United States of America or China where the entire country is homogenous in terms of language, customs, heritage, India is very heterogenous in most aspects. More like the European continent. But that's where the similarity ends. Deep within, India has become one by varying degrees and shapes over the last two thousand years. Every once in hundred years, different parts of this land were unified by a different dynasty that arose from a different part of the land. And these dynasties not only spread their local essence, but also assimilated something from parts it conquered. This was like several different flours with different textures, flavours and aromas being kneaded and folded and blended and mixed continuously.  But each region's birth-right to speak its language, eat its cuisine, sing its songs and practice its customs were never under threat. And THAT is what Indian-ness or Bharatiyata is. Unity in diversity. India's unity will be under threat if its diversity is removed. Unlike Europe, our diversity is our cause for being united.

But, that can no longer be said to be the case now.

Nothing can threaten a nation's internal peace and stability than an attempt to change its DNA, its nature, its culture. Especially when the DNA is a harmonious amalgamation of differences. And one of the brutal ways to do that is to impose a national identity on the states. In an eclectic nation like India, true harmony has never come from ignoring, rejecting and eliminating differences. True harmony comes only by acknowledging, accepting and celebrating differences. India is like a human body where each organ performs its duty not despite being surrounded by totally different organs, but because of the mutual respect that each organ has for the ones beside it.

And such harmony is directly threatened by the imposition of an ultra-nationalistic ideology that dreams of homogeneity. Odissi and Manipuri dances are as much Indian as Lavani and Bhangda. Idli and Dhokla are as much Indian as Macher Jhol and Dal Bhati Churma and Litti Choka. And THIS is what makes India, India. The idea of India - its Bharatiyata - vanishes if this heterogenity is tried to be ironed out. And for the textures to not only survive, but thrive, only regional parties should rule each state.

Of course politically the regional parties would disagree and be at loggerheads with the national party in the centre. But such disagreements only strengthen democracy and not weaken it. It is often said that the good thing about democracy is that one can talk about what is bad about democracy. And the bedrock of a healthy democracy is freedom of speech. Not just for individuals and activists and artists. But for every state. And a state ruled by a home-grown regional party will find the content, the competence and the confidence to speak at the national level. This is something that will dissipate if a national party rules a state.

A national party at the centre should concern itself only with the larger, national and international matters such as the macroeconomy and international trade, geo-politics, external affairs, defense and such. While all other matters such as language, education, agriculture, industrial development and infrastructure are better handled at the state level. This is what was envisaged when national duties and responsibilities were delegated under the union list, state list and concurrent list. But for this to happen, states must have the freedom to take decisions and execute them. Something that is not possible if the CM's boss is sitting in Delhi.

Indians have seen that when a national party rules a state, the CM cannot even scratch his head without seeking permission from the high command. THIS is not how India was born. THIS is not how India evolved. THIS is not how India gained the admiration and respect of the world. THIS is not how India flourished. The idea of a politically impregnable and culturally vibrant India is of a healthy symbiotic relationship between the emperor and the various kings whose kingdoms together formed the empire. There were no puppets. Each king maintained his/her dignity and regional sovereignty. A national party ruling a state will have a puppet and not a king with self-respect.

And such an undesirable, unsustainable and disgraceful situation can be avoided ONLY by a constitutionally mandated and protected legislation. 

Brand Reality

For marketers, brand managers and advertisers, consumer perception is reality. However illogical and half-baked and misplaced, ‘what consumers think and perceive’ about one’s product and brand is the unshakeable truth set in stone. In a consumer-driven economy where the customer is royalty, it is understandable to think so. But...

• Does having such a mindset and attitude help? 
• Does it help the consumer, the company, the brand itself? 
• Is it right to formulate business strategies based on beliefs? 
• Is it right to invest billions of dollars based on opinions? 
• Does this gap between the marketer’s reality and the consumer’s reality create a conflict? 
• Do the objective reality and the subjective perception of the brand create a dissonance in the marketer’s mind? 
• Is it time to bid goodbye to brand image and brand perception and welcome brand reality? 

What is reality?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines reality as the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary. The world view about reality is that it is in fact ‘perceptions, beliefs and attitude towards reality’. We all live travel the journey of life through our own reality tunnel which is a subconscious set of mental filters formed through our beliefs and experiences. And as we all use different filters, each one of us observes the same world differently and therefore we can say ‘truth lies in the eyes (or mind) of the beholder’. Out of all the realities, the reality of everyday life is the most important one since our consciousness requires us to be completely aware and attentive to the experience of everyday life.

 Our sense of reality is deeply affected by how our senses work together. If at all there is an objective truth, it gets mediated through our senses. And although we are bombarded by stimuli and data from all directions, we choose only a fraction of them to form perceptions. Our reality is not just defined solely by how you and I see the world. It’s something we share. Our society is akin to a fabric woven out of shared beliefs. Observations and opinions are shared, discussed, adopted and what emerges is an amalgamation of shared reality. 

Why a ‘brand’ is shared reality?

Sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann talk about social construction - the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centres on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual. 

What we think and feel about a brand, its usefulness, its contribution and the role it plays in our lives is a belief. The idea of a brand might well be born in the mind of an entrepreneur or conceived in a company’s boardroom. It might be given a name, an image, a colour and description by the design team of a creative agency. It might be promoted by a celebrity. But is that its reality? A brand’s image and perceptions about it is decided by its consumers – both the accepters and the rejecters. And while the opinion about a brand might be expressed individually, it gets shaped collectively. It is therefore an example of shared reality. And shared reality is the greatest illusion of all. 

What then should a marketer or a brand manager or an advertiser know while creating, managing and promoting a brand? How much time and money should these professionals invest in these activities if they know that the brand’s reality is based on selective perceptions? And is there a way in which the marketers and advertisers can understand precisely how these perceptions are formed and which of these perceptions shape the brand reality and how this happens?

Gini Coefficient, Gandhian economics and democracy

Sharing an essay I had written in 2008 as part of my paper titled 'India, democracy and communism'

Income and democracy

Renowned sociologist and political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset[1] propounded the ‘modernization theory’ that essentially says ‘that higher income per capita causes a country to be democratic’.

Lipset opined “The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” In other words, higher income causes a country to be more democratic. Other existing studies too establish a strong statistical correlation between income and democracy[2]. According to Robert Barro, “Increases in various measures of the standard of living forecast a gradual rise in democracy. In contrast, democracies that arise without prior economic development … tend not to last.”[3]

Conventional wisdom maintained that income per capita has a causal effect on democracy. Studies[4] by Daron Acemoglu et al effectively showed that earlier studies including the modernization theory did not consider factors that affect both income and democracy. Later studies showed that controlling for such factors by including country fixed effects removes the statistical association between income per capita and various measures of democracy. While new efforts have disproved the causal effect or suggested reverse causality – democracy causes income – they have reiterated the strong positive correlation between income and democracy.

Poverty, inequality and democracy

Poverty unfortunately has more definitions, causes and consequences than solutions. There have been authoritative, analytical, thought-provoking and thoughtful literature and work done in the area of poverty alleviation. For this paper, we shall restrict our study to correlation between poverty and choice of political system. Specifically, we shall investigate whether democracy is the right choice for a poor country; whether communism provides a better environment for reducing inequality.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and has to be studied through several indicators:

• Levels of income
• Inequality in income and consumption
• Social indicators
• Indicators of vulnerability to risks and of socio/political access

For the purpose of global aggregation and comparison, the World Bank uses reference lines set at $1.25 and $2 per day (2005 Purchasing Power Parity terms). According to a World Bank report[5], the number of poor Indians for various poverty lines is as follows:

$1.00	$1.25	$2.00	$2.50
266.5 (24.3%)	455.8 (41.6%)	827.7 (75.6%)	938.0 (85.7%)

At this stage, mention must be made of the Gini[6] coefficient[7]: the most commonly used measure of inequality (of wealth distribution; of income distribution). The Gini coefficient (sometimes Gini index) is used by the UNDP, World Bank, Transparency International, Freedom House and other organizations and bodies to measure and track several economic indicators.

The coefficient varies between 0, which reflects complete equality and 1, which indicates complete inequality (one person has all the income or consumption, all others have none). The coefficient has a negative correlation with per-capita GDP. Poor countries generally have higher Gini indices (spread between 40 and 65), while richer countries have indices below 40. Figure 2.1 shows the 2017 Gini coefficients for all nations.

Figure 2.1: Gini Coefficients – UN World Human Development Report, 2007-2008

In fact, recent studies have only reinforced the positive correlation between economic development and democracy:

1. “…These results raise the question of why there is a positive cross-country correlation between income and democracy today. We provided evidence that this is likely to be because the political and economic development paths are interwoven.” – Income and Democracy – Acemoglu et al
2. In ‘The Growth Effect of Democracy: Is It Heterogenous and How Can It Be Estimated?’ Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini have showed that democracy has an effect on economic growth.

So, was it a right decision to opt for democracy when it was not economically unsustainable? And therefore will it last in the future? A few answers could possibly be found in Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts on socialism and economic development.

Gandhian economics and Marxism

It is irrelevant and futile to speculate on what the consequences would be if India had adopted and implemented Mahtama Gandhi’s economic ideas. However it would not be futile now to study how revisiting some of Gandhi’s principles would impact socio-economical development in India. A study and commentary on the complete works of Gandhi will be pointless for the objective of this paper. However a few selected (but by no means selective) aspects[8] of Gandhian economics is presented here.

First, the concept of ‘village economy’ was the distinguishing, almost central to the Gandhian socio-economic philosophy. Gandhi’s choice of a political system was inseparable from, and deeply based on, socio-economic situation of the under-privileged. In this, Gandhian thoughts resemble Marxism. Gandhi’s vision for village India seems to be a blend of direct democracy – of which referendums are a major element – and socialist democracy. Gandhi highlighted the significance of the village economy in Harijan:

‘… I would say that if the village perishes India would perish too.  It will no more be India. Her mission in the world will get lost.  The revival of the village is possible only when it is no more exploited.  Industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers, as the problems of competition and marketing come in.  Therefore, we have to concentrate on the village being self-contained, manufacturing mainly for use.  Provided this character of the village industry is maintained, there would be no objection to villages using even modern machines and tools that they can make and can afford to use.  Only they should not be used as a means of exploitation of others’ – Harijan, 1936.

Second, Mahatma Gandhi pioneered the ‘ashram’ settlement in South Africa and established several of them in India. In spirit, intent and role the ashram has been compared with the ‘commune’: a self-sustaining, self-dependent, self-sufficient place where the inhabitants would produce and consume their basic needs and subordinate themselves to the larger interest of the society. All tasks were shared and executed equally by all inhabitants without any discrimination.

Third, Gandhi espoused the notion of ‘trusteeship’, which centred on denying material pursuits and coveting of wealth, with practitioners acting as ‘trustees’ of other individuals and the community in their management of economic resources and property. Contrary to many Indian socialists and communists, Gandhi was averse to all notions of class warfare and concepts of class-based revolution, which he saw as causes of social violence and disharmony. Gandhi claimed to be a socialist himself and his concept of trusteeship sought to destroy capitalism and not the capitalist thorough a non-violent means.  In Young India he declared:

‘By the non-violent method we seek not to destroy the capitalist, we seek to destroy capitalism.  We invite the capitalist to regard himself as a trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention and the increase of his capital. …Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is in a position to become a co-sharer of the capitalist instead of remaining his slave.  If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.’ – Young India, 1931

Today, Gandhian thought is more relevant than ever because of the havoc that globalisation has wreaked across economies – not as much as in capitalist greed driven economic recession, which by its cyclical nature would be temporary in its life – but through marginalisation and socio-economic isolation of local natives.

The Gandhian ideal of rural democracy and economic self-reliance, going under the name ‘Sarvodaya’, is fundamentally opposed to the contemporary dynamics of globalisation that is based on neo-liberal ideology.  Gandhi described it as follows:

‘… Every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole.   This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world… In this, there is no room for machines that would displace human labor and concentrate power in a few hands. Labor has its unique place in a cultural human family. Every machine that helps every individual has a place’ – Kunal Roy Chowdhuri, 1993

Theft, which finds mentions repeatedly in Gandhi’s writings, refers to greed and all its manifestations like overproduction and consumerism. Both these are characteristic of an accumulative capitalist society. Gandhi echoes the thoughts of Marx and Engels when he says:

‘It is theft for me to take any fruit that I do not need, or to take it in a larger quantity than is necessary.’[9]

The similarity in the philosophies of Marx and Gandhi is also evident in Gandhi’s views on labour, which as a ‘working class is continuously oppressed by a small ruling class’[10]

Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship reflects his efforts at spiritualising economics and his principles are rooted in human dignity. And it is here that we see differences in Gandhian socialism and Marxist socialism:

• Although the care for the working class was equally genuine in both, Gandhian socialism draws inspiration from Indian spirituality while Marxism was born from the sweat and blood of the industrial capitalism.
• While the need for affirmative action was equally emphasised by both, Gandhian socialism is based on trust in the good sense of the zamindar, while Marx believed in force.

And it is in these differences that we notice not only the similarity of objectives in Gandhism and Marxism but also the applicability of their philosophies to India.

---

[1] Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy – Seymour Martin Lipset – The American Political Science Review

[2]

a.        Huntington, Samuel P. – The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century;

b.       Rueschemeyer Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens – Capitalist Development and Democracy.

[3] Barro, Robert J. 1999. “Determinants of Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy

[4] Income and Democracy – Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson James A., Yared P. – American Economic Review, 2008

[5] “The Developing World Is Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less Successful in the Fight against Poverty” – Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen – Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank

[6] Corrado Gini (1884-1965) – Italian sociologist, demographer and statistician

[7] Expressed as a percentage – Gini Index

[8] Various excerpts from ‘Economics of Third Sector Management in India’ – H.A. Shankaranarayana – 2006

[9] M. K. Gandhi, ‘The quest for simplicity: “My idea of Swaraj”’ in M. Rahmena &V. Bawtree – The Post-Development Reader Zed, 1997

[10] M. K. Gandhi, ‘What is Just?’ in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad

On being a vaidika dharmika (hindu to others)

धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ।

तस्माद्धर्मो न हन्तव्यः मानो धर्मो हतोवाधीत् ॥

Dharma, when destroyed, destroys; Dharma protects when it is protected.

Therefore, Dharma does not destroy, nor Dharma can be destroyed.

Today there is a lot of concern and talk about the danger to Hindu dharma from Islam and Christianity. In the few, but increasingly frequent discussions on this subject that I have been involved in, and wherein I have been forced to think about and express my views (the key word is stand) are on this, I have, by virtue of being put into compartments, learned two things: one, that none of the participants themselves are aware of what hindu (I consider this label to be most inappropriate, inadequate and even insulting to describe this great way of life) dharma is; and two, that I am proud of what I myself am and what my dharma is.

I don't know why Hindus are preoccupied so much with something that is irrelevant and doesn't deserve even a passing glance. There is no danger to my dharma or any other dharma or any ideology other than its own weak immunity. Today the danger (if at all) that Vaidika dharma faces is not from other beliefs. How can one belief be a danger to another belief if the belief has people who respect, understand and practice it? When the body has strong immunity, it has nothing to fear from external attack.

If at all Vaidika dharma (or Hindu dharma as some ignorant people call it) is threatened (and I believe it is not because of Muslims or Christians), and if vaidika dharma has to be protected, then it is by loving it, understanding it and practicing it. Not by hating others.  

The strongest arguments that have been placed on the need to protect hindu dharma has been about the inability of the constitution in preventing conversions; absence of uniform civil code and the double standards that exist in treating hindu and minority places of worship and educational institutions. Yes, these are very valid and relevant points and the Indian constitution can never be secular if these are not rectified.

But this post is about what we as individuals, as practitioners, as followers need to do.

So, without wasting much words I would like to use an analogy that a simple person like me is capable of putting forth:

If as a marketer I am seeing my customers lapsing to a competing brand, I will introspect and try to understand why they left and not try and hate the other brand. I will try to make my brand relevant and strong. If you truly love & respect your wife/ husband, s/he will never leave you just because a richer, more attractive third person woos her/him AND the constitution allows this wooing to take place.

All this talk about Hindutva, Hinduism, Hinduness etc is basically hatred for other beliefs. Aggression is the clearest indication of insecurity. I see a similarity in a particular type of definition. I think it is called 'negative definition’: I.e. defining something by describing what it is NOT. Nowadays Hindus are becoming 'people who are not Muslims, Christians, etc'.

I am noticing that today people are Hindus not because they respect, understand and practice their dharma. But they are Hindus by being haters of other beliefs. And I believe that this might be true of other faiths too.

I would like to conclude this short note with an excerpt on from my letter to my children where I had expressed my views on who is a hindu.

Dear children,

You both will face a question about Sanatana Dharma (from others or from within yourself) at least once in your lives. By the way, Sanatana Dharma (ancient way of living) is the correct term. ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindustan’, ‘India’, ‘Indus’ are geographically-descriptive words used by western foreigners and visitors to describe the ancient Indian people. All people living near and east of Sindhu were called Hindus by the foreigners.

Coming back to the topic, ‘Who is a Hindu?’, ‘What is Hinduism?’, ‘How to be a Hindu?’ are the various questions for which you will want an answer. I did too and this is what I have understood.

How to be a Hindu?

1. Be born and therefore...

2. You accept that you are part of nature and not its master and therefore...

3. You see divinity in everything (including non-living) and therefore...

4. You believe in peaceful co-existence harmony and therefore...

5. You may disagree with, but are respectful and tolerant of others and therefore...

6. You celebrate differences and the role played by each and therefore...

7. You focus your attention on YOUR duty, YOUR role and doing it with honesty and excellence

Basically, Dharma means way of living and duty. Good dharma is to live life by being truthful, honest, active, clean, non-violent and peaceful. Dharma DOESN’T mean ONLY religious practices and actions like praying, visiting temples, celebrating festivals and chanting hymns. Of course one can make righteous living and duty as one’s religion. As Basavanna said ‘kaayakave kailasa’ (work is worship).

An open letter to all political parties

What you are about to read was originally written by me on WhatsApp on 07/01/2020 and shared with my contacts. As the post received overwhelming support, I decided to publish this on my blog.  Also note: As a few people missed the point I made in my original message, on 08/01/2020 I composed and shared an explanatory note which is also posted after the main post. On 12/01/2020 there was an informal discussion in my neighborhood about what I had written. When I got the chance to speak, I recorded my thoughts, which also I have shared here.

To BJP, Congress, these people, those people, people who support those people, people who support these people

Once upon a time, there was a time when ‘we’ meant ‘all’. Beware Congress! By ‘once upon a time’ I don’t mean ‘before BJP came to power’. Beware BJP! I also don’t mean to refer to the time before Islam entered India.

Damn! Just see what you have done! Today, because of you we have to think so much before saying anything, we have to measure the political correctness of every word, every phrase. Why? We even have to think about our facial features and looks. The very fact that we have to be politically correct is what is very incorrect about your politics.

Beware Leftists! Before you start crying intolerance, let me tell you that you too are intolerant about those who don’t tolerate you. Beware Rightists! This doesn’t mean I am one of you.

Who am I?
I am one who doesn’t want to take sides. I am one who does his Sandhyavandane every day, but his evenings are incomplete without Ghulam Ali’s ghazals. I am one who wants his son to bat like Sehwag and bowl like Wasim Akram. I am one who sees the essence of ‘aham brahmasmi’ in these lines of Akbar Allahabadi: ‘…har zarra chamakta hai anwaar-e-ilahi se, har saans yeh kehti hai hum hai toh khuda bhi hai…’

I believe by now the left and right sides of your brain are sending messages like ‘Error!’, ‘Invalid Input!’, ‘Abort!’ to each other.

I am one who flirts with women, but respects them. But that doesn’t mean I carry a placard that says ‘Respect Women’. Men deserve respect too. In fact, I don’t respect ‘elders’ or ‘leaders’. In fact I am one who respects ONLY THOSE people who deserve respect: people who speak the truth, people who are punctual, people who are disciplined, people who don’t do shoddy work, people who are not corrupt. Yeah! Go figure that one out! See, this is why I don’t respect YOU.

I am one who likes Bhagat Singh, but doesn’t hate Gandhi. I like Nehru’s ‘temples of modern India’ phrase, but I love visiting temples and churches. Just makes me feel good. That doesn’t mean I want THE temple. Nor does it mean I don’t want it. It doesn’t matter to me. I am a Smartha Brahmin, but my god is Spinoza’s god. Yet, I don’t ‘pray’. My only prayer is that I make myself so responsible and healthy and skilful, that I don’t need to ‘pray’ before any god again. Are you with me?

I am one who knows double-meaning jokes on Shiva, Ram, Mohammed and Jesus. There was a time when we would share these jokes in a group that had Ganesh, Hanuman, Ali and Paul. I am one who knows the finest Sardarji and Mallu jokes picked up from Bhalla and Siju. That was a time when cracking a joke on a god NEVER meant disrespect to the god or his devotee. A joke was a joke. YOU do realize that this is not a joke anymore, don’t you?

So, what am I?
Today there are three types of people in this country: The first category are those who think that BJP can do nothing right. Then there are those who think BJP can do nothing wrong. I belong to the third category: those who think. And I am not alone. So, how large is my group? Well, I guess less than 1% of the population. Once upon a time… 99% of the population was like me. But look what all of YOU have done! YOU have forced people to take sides. Split wide open!

Today it is impossible for a person like me to think, speak, write and express. Beware Activists and Artistes! I am not talking about ‘your’ definition or version of freedom of expression and intolerance. I don’t have a version or viewpoint. In fact I never had just one viewpoint. I don’t want to have a viewpoint. I don’t want to take sides.

I am one who wants to think, speak, write, express, do. Period. 
I don’t want to take sides like right or left or centre. I want to think right, left, centre, up, down, front, back, everywhere, nowhere.
In fact I want the freedom to NOT think, speak, write, express, do.
I want to be flexible in my beliefs, but steadfast in just one thing – morals.

And I am alone! And I am a bit scared, but I am very, very worried.

Make no mistake… today activists and artistes say that right-wing fundamentalism and communalism is threatening them. Right-wing supporters say that the nation has to be saved from the clutches of leftist, pseudo-secularist ideology. This ism says that the other ism is a threat. The other ism says that this ism is dangerous. The stark naked truth is this – both sides have support, both sides are empowered, both sides are strong.

It is that 1% of the population like me who really are facing intolerance, persecution, threats and insecurity. When I watch a cricket match between India and Australia, I don’t want to take sides. I want to enjoy cricket. If at all I want to take sides, then I want to take sides with fair-play, sportsmanship and decency. Are YOU all getting this?

Today, none of the ‘sides’ are threatened or in danger of being destroyed. It is people like me who don’t want to take sides who are under clear and present danger. 

There is a song by Kishore Kumar in Gulzar’s movie Khushboo: ‘oh maajhi rey… apna kinaara… nadiya ki dhaara hai…’ These lines perfectly summarize my situation. The banks (किनारा) of a river are supposed to be stable and supportive compared to the flow (धारा). But the fact is that the banks never meet (agree). So what does a person do when both banks are dear to him? He makes the flow as his किनारा. In other words he derives stability by choosing the middle path and going with the flow. There is a word for such people – तटस्थ, which could mean neutral or indifferent. Make no mistake. Indifferent people are definitely not uninvolved or unpatriotic or undependable or untrustworthy or irresponsible. We just don’t want to take sides. How difficult is it for you to get this?

Today the worst sufferers of intolerance are neither on this side nor on that side. Today the biggest victims of intolerance are those like me who are on neither side. Today the atrocity of intolerance is being committed on the last remaining neutral 1% - forcing us, arm-twisting us, blackmailing us to take sides. I choose the middle path. Not because I don’t care. But especially because I care.

I care for my family, I care for my clients, I care for my fields, I care for my patients, I care for my students, I care for my customers, I care for my country’s law and order, I care for my nation’s sovereignty.

Who am I?
I am the parent, I am the daily wage labourer, I am the teacher, I am the salesman, I am the engineer, I am the farmer, I am the nurse, I am the shopkeeper, I am the security guard, I am the tailor, I am the carpenter, the plumber, the electrician, the driver, the soldier. I am a human being. I am the citizen of India. Individually I am less than 1%, but actually I am everyone. Almost.

I don’t care whether Gandhi was a desh-bhakt or Godse was a desh-bhakt. For me the true desh-bhakts are the 1% like me – the farmer who toils in the fields, the nurse who tends to my wounds, the teacher who imparts knowledge, the soldier who protects. If at all there are desh-drohis in my opinion, then for me it is those who waste tax-payers money and time on debating whether Gandhi or Godse was a desh-bhakt. Gandhi gave YOU political freedom. But what about OUR freedom? Where is the freedom from child-abuse? Where is the freedom from bad roads? Where is the freedom from power cuts? Where is the freedom from pollution? For the past 70 years, every year 3 months of water shortage and drought is followed by 3 months of floods. Where is the freedom from this lack of commitment to do something about this? In the past 40 years, while the price of every item from grocery to furniture to clothes to stationery to building materials… even petrol or gold has normally risen between 15 to 40 times… there is one item whose price has risen by 300 times. And that is school education. Why? No wonder there is a politician of some kind in the board of directors or management council of nearly EVERY school. Where is the freedom from YOU?

Don’t mistake me… I am neither for, nor against demonetisation, GST, CAA, CAB, NRC, ABC, PQR, XYZ… I don’t understand all this. I trust you and some of the learned people amongst you to think about all of this. Because you are administrators. I voted you – both the proposers and evaluators. Pardon me, I don’t like to use the word ruling party and opposition party because the word ‘ruling’ has a tinge of arrogance and the word ‘opposition’ has a tinge of non-cooperation associated with them. Change the way you describe yourselves. Call yourselves proposing party and evaluating parties. Together you are executives, administrators, implementers. 

There is a saying in Kannada which says 'in the fight between the mother and father, the child starved'

So.. Stop this ‘side’-way nonsense! Right now! We don’t want to be on the side of BJP or on the side of Congress; not on the side of this ism or that ism; neither here nor there. For once, can we all be on the side of this 1% whose money ensures you have a home to live and food on your table? 

By the way, I know one thing for sure. My letter would have done the impossible – unite you with anger against me. At least, if and when your supporters bash me, I will be happy to know that for once, they shunned their differences. 

Dear BJP, Congress, these people, those people, people who support those people, people who support these people
My name is Krishna Jambur and I am the one who belongs to the group which by now should be slightly larger than 1%... 1.01%...1.02%... and growing. Leave your banks… come join us… jump into the river… life is much more meaningful this way. We shall rest on both banks... today here... tomorrow there... after all, the river WILL reach the sea. With or without banks.


The explanatory WhatsApp message that I forwarded on 08/01/2020

Hi,
Yesterday I sent you a message. I hope you've read it (sorry for the length). 
What do you think I was trying to say?

The point I was trying to make is that I am sick and tired of the politicians from EVERY party trying to tell me how I should be. 

I don't want ANY political party to tell me how to be a good Hindu, Muslim, Christian and so on. 

My message was a scream of anguish against the politicians to leave me alone
I have my business to mind. I have enough on my mind - to take care of my family, my children, my parents, my finances, my job, my health...

The last thing I need is for the politicians of ANY party to treat me like a robot and program me.


My message was a clear message to EVERY Indian citizen to ask EVERY political party to mind their own business - and that is to give us good, clean, efficient, corruption-free governance.


The audio recording on 12/01/2020:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDQZxFrjKg6l0aq6Z36Fw_SZl_kb8XB4/view?usp=sharing

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'?