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'?

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.