Sunday 30 November 2014

Live the Change



                                                                       Live the Change
How many of us like a change in our lives? Even those who aspire for a better position or a better status or a better standard of living will be initially anxious to take the leap but sooner than later resile from any contemplated change. When I see the glossy advertisements of a new coat of paint for the walls inside  and outside, I love to paint my house in those rich hues but the labour involved in de-cluttering and re-cluttering the rooms and the prohibitive costs stall my desire to see my house glossy like the ones we see on our tele- screens.  I would rather wallow in the dust coated, rusty looking house than exert myself to change it. For most of us status quo is always welcome as it demands the least disturbance to the dull, pedestrian and ordinary existence we live. Maybe the foetal position we were in for a little over 9 months before we came in to the world that we are born inert and do not venture to stir ourselves  even though deep within there is a wish to accept life’s little and big challenges and emerge triumphant. But it costs us little to dream and indulge in armchair talk about the need for change, to add some spice to a boring life, to be courageous to get rid of placidity and  lethargy, to move up the social ladder, to live like Jones without the need to stretch and exert oneself. But when it comes to action we revert to where we are with a philosophic resignation “ che sara sara”.
This is true of a majority of people and it is only a few among us who dare to venture out of their cocooned life and seek to make a change in their lives for the better. These few are the ones  known as the game changers whom the crowds hero worship, make them their leaders and expect them to  provide a few crumbs off their full plate.  It is no exaggeration to say that we prefer someone spoon feeding us without our ever having to get up to have our morsel. In schools and colleges, the teacher who refuses to dictate notes and spoon-feed his students is considered a poor teacher.  It is the game changers who re-write and modify the world, its aspirations, culture and civilization while they become the venerable object of mass adulation, fawning and sycophancy that catapult them as their rightful leaders. People generally are overawed by men of action; so are they by men of words. But only when the men of words become men of action, they can usher in a change in the people, society and the world around.
But the biggest worry about doers and changers is the kind of distinction they build in the change they envisage for themselves and for others. In all cases the change is certainly for the better for them( and they deserve it also) but it may not be for those who have accepted them unquestioningly as their leaders and look up to them as a source of manna. There have been many game changers –some good, some evil and all of them have changed the world and given it a new direction. In the ultimate analysis, good or evil, the change has been for the better.
 The greatest game changer of the last century was Hitler. Adolf Hitler never held a regular job and all through his brooding teenage days  he spent in idleness and poverty in Vienna. He slowly rose  to become the leader of the Nazi party and of Germany largely due to his extraordinary skill as a speaker, holding large crowds spellbound by his oratory. He astounded everyone with a highly emotional, at times near hysterical manner of speech making.  But after joining the German Workers' Party in 1919 at the age  of thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed by playing on the fears of Germans in case  Communist revolution were to succeed. The rest is history. He ruled Germany through totalitarian means from 1933 to 1945.  He promoted German pride and anti-Semitism and spread irrational hatred for the Jews. This resulted in the Nazi annihilation of 6 million Jews besides the death of many in the deadly Second World War. The aftermath of Hitler’s defeat saw the founding of the United Nations and the joining of the Western world to function as a deterrent to any war of such magnitude.
 By an opposing token we can see another game changer, Abraham Lincoln who had popularized the phrase: “Log Cabin to the Whitehouse.” Born in a poor family he educated himself to become a lawyer and later the President of the United States. He fought against slavery and outlawed it. Lincoln's simple values of equality and freedom led the U.S. through its Civil War and made him one of the nation's greatest presidents.  He appealed to the American people with his powers of oratory and dedicated the United States  to the principles of nationalism, republicanism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy.
The story of Mahatma Gandhi rose from a merchant caste family to become the Father of the Nation through his commitment to truth and non-violence. Not only did he succeed in getting Independence for India, he inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. He was an inspiration to millions of Indians  who were serving their years under the British rule. He moved the masses with his speeches and was a prolific writer. By his personal spartan appearance and living, by his steadfastness to his own principles and living a life adhering to them, he made Indians realize the virtues of sacrifice, love, truth and non violence. So did Jawaharlal Nehru known for his silver tongued oratory and prolific writings inspire Indians to fight and retain their hard- fought democracy. His works The Discovery of India, Glimpses of World History and Letters from Father to Daughter have become modern classics that look at India and the world with the same degree of honesty, clarity and objectivity.  Gandhi, Nehru and the other great architects of Indian freedom Movement were able to change the history of India from being ruled to self-rule. They were the real game changers whose personal achievement was embedded in the national triumph and glory and who inspired the masses to follow the principles of truth and ahimsa.
Closer to our times, the most notable person who rose from humble origins to become the President of India is Abdul Kalam, known for his motivational speeches and interaction particularly with the student community in India. Born in a fisherman’s family, he rose to be the 11th President of India. By his tireless work and study he became a top scientist and the missile man of India. He has also written a number of books and his simplicity and genuine passion for the nation have made him the most loved President of India. His speeches appeal to all people, in particular the young adults - to work not for personal glory but for the glory of the nation.
 I have listed  a few of the game changers and barring Hitler( and there are many more names of his kind like Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Eichmann, Joseph Stalin etc) all the above mentioned game changers have been a blessing to their nations and to humanity.
What makes these game changers different from the Hitlerites? They did not set out to achieve personal glory, but their efforts were directed at the larger interest of others. It was their selfless approach that made them inspire fellow men and women to rise up discarding their personal ambition and to work for the greater glory of their nation and its people. But the singular fact that makes these game changers a distinct group is they did not just write or speak about change but they lived that change  all through their lives. They were not ambitious nor did they try to make others do what they themselves did not follow. For them practice and precept were one and the same. They never indulged in untruths to please and win over people. Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying   You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time” is a testimony to these adherents of truth, selflessness and humanity.
Unfortunately the times have changed. We are witness to a whole lot of politicians today who can neither speak nor write and whose oratorical skills stop with lampooning their adversaries. When they try to be persuasive and eloquent, it is only to fool people and garner their good will for they know they will not be able  to walk the talk which demands living to their own words.  The concern for fellow humanity is the last thing in their minds except to mouth homilies that they are committed to their development and prosperity. What is lacking is humility and the correlation between their lives and their words. If one wants to change,  s/he  should personally live the change to test its worth before demanding change from the rest. Otherwise these tokenisms are empty words. We have to wear our idea of change on our sleeves- not for others to see, but for our own selves. If a teacher fails to turn up in the classroom or is always unpunctual, can s/he make the students imbibe the virtue of punctuality? If the teacher  ails to clean the board, pick up the bits of chalk and leave the classroom clean for the next teacher, can the students learn the culture of cleanliness? No amount of sloganeering ‘Swachch Bharat” will change the young people unless the teacher lives the essence of his teaching. It is the same story at home. If parents fail to keep the house in order, the children will never learn to appreciate orderliness. They will accept a life of lies, deceit and corruption as the norm when they see their parents indulge in unethical practices and also reap dividends.
We have come a long way from the era of our freedom fighters. The reason is not far to seek. It is not just the leaders or politicians who have let us down, but it is we  who have collectively let ourselves down. What is needed from us is not any superhuman heroics   but a simple effort to practise what we preach.  Jesus said: “Do unto others what you do unto yourself”. You live the change that you wish for others and the world will change with you.


Sunday 23 November 2014

Think in India



PM Modi may not be pleased with his HRD Minister, who instead of working towards Congress Mukht Bharat, is seen following the path of the erstwhile Congress Minister for HRD, Kapil Sibal.  Smriti Irani is following the footsteps of Kapil Sibal who introduced his hair-brained scheme of abolishing Xth Board examinations within 100 days of taking over the Ministry in 2009. Little did he visualize its impact on young people, depriving them of taking challenges in life from their early years. For Smriti, the first decision within 100 days was to pressurize UGC to bend and reverse its earlier approval of FYUP introduced by the University of Delhi. Little did she bestow thoughts on the significance of FYUP and how it can be reformed to make university learning broad based and inter-disciplinary. But while Kapil stopped further policy changes on education beyond mouthing empty platitudes for a couple of  years (as he was shifted from HRD to the Ministry of Communications and IT after two years)  about the decline in our standards and the need to rejuvenate education and make India the knowledge hub of the world etc, it has taken Smriti Irani 180+ days to put her new ideas as HRD Minister.
She has come out with a new idea forged in the RSS foundry to ask Kendriya Vidyalayas to replace German by Sanskrit as the latter is a national language and the former a foreign language. Her rationale is simply this: “I study Sanskrit and therefore I am Indian/ Hindu” because the RSS and its compliant subordinates wear their Hindu identity with the slogan   “Hindu is Indian; Indian is Hindu”. Citing the Constitution and the three language formula, she says that the third language should be any language from the VIIIth schedule of the Constitution. Her argument in favour of studying Sanskrit(or any other local language) is that studying in a local language will increase the country’s GDP (no one can ask how GDP will increase).  No one argues against the inclusion of Sanskrit as a third language but not as a replacement for foreign languages. In fact the three language policy of the government does not exclude learning foreign languages while it includes languages recognized in the VIIIth schedule of the Constitution.
 Today we live in a globalized world and the PM is a globetrotting rock star mesmerizing businessmen and investors to come to India. While we can with great pride cry from the rooftops that Sanskrit is a modern Indian language, everyone knows it is only an ancient  classical language and that there are no text books in sciences and social sciences, in commerce and humanities written in Sanskrit. Even in UK the modern study of classics exemplifies the diversity of the field. Although traditionally focused on ancient Greece and Rome, the study now encompasses the entire ancient Mediterranean world, thus expanding their studies to Northern Africa and parts of the Middle East. But we seem to replace study of foreign languages in our schools .
 Sanskrit is not a spoken language today. Very few people converse in Sanskrit except in Mattur, a small village town in Karnataka.  Where are the teachers and researchers in Sanskrit who can bring alive this great classical language to meet the requirements of modern knowledge- especially modern science and technology and even modern political, economic and philosophical studies? German Ambassador Michael Steiner says “what is important is that you choose a foreign language because language is the tool to the globalized world. It is the tool to global confidence.” Smriti should remember the famous saying in Sanskrit from Rg Veda: “aa no bhadraah kratavo yantu vishwataah” (Let noble thoughts come to us from every side)
A majority of students presently enrolled in our National Sanskrit universities are more interested in studying Astrology and Vedic rituals to become astrologers and Purohits to earn good money. They do not find any use for Sanskrit unless one does a B.Ed to become a Sanskrit teacher in a school. To remove German or for that matter any foreign language from the school curriculum is a retrograde step. If Sanskrit is to be given the pride of place among language study, let there be a structural change in the study of this language at the graduate  and post graduate levels in our Universities so that we have scholars and researchers who  can think, write, articulate and conduct research in Sanskrit and make it the language of modern science and technology, modern medicine and engineering and modern thought. Only high proficiency in Sanskrit will enable writing  authentic text books on different disciplines to make the language come alive.  The present effort is merely to give students an elementary understanding of the language (to score high marks) and inject in the youth a warped and unscientific understanding of our tradition. The students will have no use for Sanskrit once they leave school as the language is not ready  and adequately modernised to absorb new thoughts, new scientific and technological developments and new concepts in economics and social sciences.  Change for the sake of change has no lasting advantage. Change to meet the demands of the time is what makes it worthwhile and useful.
The next foray of our HRD minister is into the realm of higher education. Paralleling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for “Make in India”, she has come up with the slogan  Think in India”. We all know that imitation is the best form of flattery. But Smriti has no need to flatter or please the PM because she has been handpicked by him to head the HRD Ministry and she enjoys a reasonably good equation with the RSS as well. She had earlier arranged on Doordarshan a special session for PM to interact with school children on Teachers Day and received great praise for her effort.  Hence one wonders why she should attempt to flatter PM- who is known to maintain his distance from anyone and everyone except from  Amit Shah and his Man Friday, Arun Jaitley besides his four or five trusted bureaucrats.
Whatever may be the reason, HRD Minister has launched a campaign Think in India. The only difference between PM’s slogan and hers is PM’s Make in India mainly targets and woos foreign investors and top companies across manufacturing sectors in identified countries to make India a global manufacturing hub while his HRD minister’s slogan is unlikely to be addressed to foreign nationals to think in India. Hers is a slogan for Indians, by Indians and of Indians.
I tried to figure out what is meant by Think in India. As per the Media report, Smriti Irani explained: “Think in India would encourage students and researchers to come up with innovations and new ideas to keep the talent here from leaving for abroad”. In the first place in a democratic country, every citizen is free to choose his destination and move forward. The Minister feels that our young men and women who go abroad for study and work do so because they are not encouraged to think in India. Only when they think in India, they qualify for admission in foreign universities. It begs the question as to whether we need encouragement and endorsement to think in India! The reason for choosing foreign universities is because of the quality of education and research facilities offered there.
It is beyond comprehension to launch a campaign Think in India .  The famous Cartesian truth comes to my mind “I think, therefore I am”. Thinking is genetic to our existence. Even a mad person or an idiot does not cease to think. What s/he thinks is different, but the fact is one exists so long as one thinks. Even medically one is declared dead only after the brain is dead. So Think in India sounds specious as it equates thinking with a place and not with the person. What is the difference to my thinking in India and my thinking elsewhere?  Think India, Think about India  or Think of India or Think for India may carry overtones of patriotism and loyalty to the motherland, but Think in India means I shall cease to exist if I think in US or UK,  Europe or Singapore or Moon and the Mars.
The Minister of HRD must understand Indians think wherever they are just like Americans, British, Europeans, Africans and all other nationalities in the world. Kindly allow us to think- not limit us to think in India. If Amartya Sen or Venkatraman Ramakrishnan thinks in Cambridge, do we reject their findings as not applicable and relevant to India? If Swami Vivekananda took the world by storm by his Chicago address, did it amount to his thinking in US and not thinking in India? What about our hon’ble PM's rock star addresses in US and Australia?  Does HRD Minister feel that the PM should only think in India and not during his foreign visits? I hope Smriti does not refuse invitations to address in foreign nations because she wants only to think in India. Dear madam, please allow us  to continue to think irrespective of where we are. Let us also not think only as Indians as we are a part of humanity and a part of a globalized world.

Tuesday 18 November 2014

Make in India : a Replacement for Made in India



I had an interesting experience the other day when I visited the General Post Office to update our Savings Account Passbooks. Even though I was there early in the morning (after allowing time for the clerks, assistants and their seniors to saunter in, dust their tables, and settle down with a cup of tea), I found myself at the end of a fairly long queue waiting in an orderly way, very reminiscent of the long waiting lines in London without anyone attempting to queue-jump. Almost all the queue liners were like me in our late sixties and seventies and surprisingly they were more women than men in the queue in the ratio of 3w:1m. As I looked around, I found many of their spouses seated on the benches with a stick by their sides, confirming my view (shared with most other women) that age does not diminish the vigour and energy of women in contrast to men who on reaching the age of superannuation display lassitude and lethargy even if they stay healthy and fit. The women including me did not seek any special and privileged priority for attention at the counter as we were all old timers unschooled in feminist thoughts and demands.
As I was waiting my turn, I could listen to the conversations among men in the queue as well as among those benched by their smarter and fitter better halfs. I realized that most of them were retired senior bureaucrats who had invested in the Post Office Savings for tax benefits. One of them reminisced that he was seated next to the Finance Minister at a meeting that sanctioned this swanky GPO building when he was under secretary. Another said that he never had to visit any of these damned offices as his Private Secretary attended to all his personal matters like opening Savings account in the post office or investing in Public Provident  funds etc. One of the tall gentlemen standing just ahead of me turned to tell the one behind me (to see beyond a diminutive me was not difficult for him)that the pretty dame at the counter was the one appointed by him and with a smug self satisfied smile quoted   Shakespeare that “age cannot wither her nor custom stale her infinite variety”. When I saw her at the counter I wondered what was in her to wither and what variety she had to become stale! Anyhow I reasoned within that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Most of these old men were once striding like colossus along the corridors of power. They were the top bureaucrats who had everything going for them in their hey-days. They were the administrators - “made in India’ -and who stayed in India and not exported for work in foreign lands. Even in the evening of their life, they stood apart with a cerebral halo around them, distinguished and dignified despite being escorted by their wives and supported by a walking stick. We have a saying in Tamil for such people-“empty asafetida jars”
I recall the PM pitching for “Make in India” to transform India into a global manufacturing hub. This, inter alia, is meant to generate employment in service sector activities. But it also lays emphasis on skill development which to old timers like me will adversely impact quality education in our high class institutions. The current generation of “Made in India’’ graduates from our universities  do not wish to be a part of the famed steel frame of India of yester years, but they look westward and the steel frame is slowly losing its sheen and getting rusted. In the last ten years 181 officers of the Indian Administrative service have quit and many of our bright young men and women coming out of our higher education institutions are opting for jobs outside India. A job in Singapore is valued higher than civil service in India. The highly reputed institutions like the IITs and the IIMs besides Medical and other professional institutions and a few Universities of excellence produce exportable quality researchers, engineers, doctors, and other professionals with a “Made in India “stamp. They go West with a “Made in India” tag and sooner than later replace it with “Made in US/UK…” tag. They stay rooted to the West and even when they ecstatically welcome and fete our PM on his visits to their adopted countries, they have no desire to return and invest in “make in India” manufacturing process. The post independence era of ramrod straight “Made in India” IAS officers are no longer visible except in post offices, pension offices and such other places to transact personal financial matters. Today sixty-seven years after independence, “Made in India” has no value within the country. The question arises whether the new slogan “Make in India” will be a homecoming for those settled abroad, who have rubbed out the sheen of the original “Made in India “tag and glossed it with a “Made in US/UK…” tag. It also begets the question whether “Make in India” is for domestic consumption or only for export to the West. Last but not the least, there is a still larger question: Will “Make in India” have a quality comparable with all those that are made out of India?

Sunday 16 November 2014

An Argument Pro Argument and against No Argument


                                 
                                         An Argument Pro Argument and against No Argument
I received an email making a case against arguments.  In fact it was captioned An Argument against Arguments. To use argument to counter argument seems more of a sophistry in words than in substance.  A world without arguments is as utopian as a world without walls. In fact argument is central to all discussions where reasons are advanced for and against a proposal or a proposition. The article referred to above looks at arguments solely as polemical and contentious, aimed at disputing any postulation or concept that is made. It attributes the genesis of all arguments to human pride, self-righteousness, greediness, selfishness- in short, to gain one-upmanship in any competing discussion. This definition looks at argument as triggering a firestorm and not as a line of reasoning for any discussion. The Indian tradition of public debate and intellectual pluralism as demonstrated by Amartya Sen in his book The Argumentative Indian underlines the importance of public debate that has been the strength of India from the time of Buddha and Ashoka. “The understanding and use of this argumentative tradition are critically important”, Sen argues, “for the success of India's democracy, the defence of its secular politics, the removal of inequalities related to class, caste, gender and community, and the pursuit of sub-continental peace.”
The article begins with a quotation from the Proverbs: “A soft answer turns away wrath” to suggest that all arguments are heated altercations and soft answers are no arguments. On the basis of such an assumption that arguments are quarrelsome in nature, the article says that arguments result in wars and destruction of homes. This is a specious argument because the two world wars of the last century as also the wars of terrorism of the present century can be traced to the aggressive will and power of isolated individuals who brook no argument against their personal hatred of people belonging to a religion or race or group other than their own. Hitler swelling with pride as belonging to the Aryan master race had a morbid obsession against the Jews, the physically challenged, the Blacks etc whom he regarded as degenerate. His violent hatred of the Jews resulted in the extermination of six million Jews and the onset of World War II. His slogan must have been  “No arguments please, We are the Aryans”.  Earlier  the World War I drew in all the world's economic great powers- the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Later Italy which had earlier  been a member of the Central Powers  alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary,  joined  the Allies with , Japan and the United States. Ultimately, the underlying causes were political, territorial and economic conflicts among the great European powers besides militarism, nationalism and imperialism. More than 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died as a result of this deadly war. Similarly breakdown of marriages and families have many causes other than just arguments between husband and wife. The subtle form of violence is present whenever “resources and power are unequally distributed, concentrated in the hands of the few, who do not use them to achieve the possible realization of all embers, but use parts of them for self satisfaction or for purposes of dominance, oppression and control of other societies or of the underprivileged in the same society.”(World Council of Churches: Violence, Non-Violence and the Struggle for Social Justice)
Yet another argument made against argument is that there is absolutely no gain from argument but only loss of time, energy and friendship. This conclusion is premised on the notion that no free exchange of opinion is possible between two persons without causing friction between them. Even parliamentary debates are for exchange of ideas and views and even when the decibel levels go high, they help the members to have  a re-look at the proposal and make the necessary changes for broad acceptance. The top Parliamentarians known for their heated exchanges within the Parliament are often seen as good friends once they are out of the hall. To argue against argument is to accept the famous dictum ‘my way or the highway’-to assert that there shall be no alternative to any given view .
At the end the argument in favour of No argument turns itself on its head when it says “No one ever wins an argument.” Yes this is precisely the reason to say yes to arguments because arguments lead to bridging consensus between different views and opinions. Everyone has his share of acceptance and rejection of his ideas. The more we argue, the closer we come to know and accept the other person and his different point of view.
To argue is genetic to all human beings. It is a fundamental human right as it endorses freedom to think and arrive at one’s views and ideas, freedom to express them and freedom to mould them and reshape them within a broad canvas. Joseph Joubert the 19th C French essayist in his Pense’es wrote: "The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress".

Well, here is an argument I have against No argument and I hope this Argument for Argument and against No Argument will be a genuine and not a pyrrhic victory for the advancement of ideas.