Can't you dress like a gentleman?

During a visit to England, an Englishman asked the great Swami Vivekananda ji, who wore traditional Indian clothes,
"Why don't you wear proper clothes to look like a gentleman?"

Swami ji's response was,

"Maybe, here, its the tailor that makes a gentleman, in our country its character"

_____________________

An excess of economic  wealth is as harmful as poverty. Wealthy societies begin to decay because they grow clueless of what to do with their wealth and their time.

Such a society is identified by numerous and elaborate social rituals and an excess focus on political correctness.  This keeps the idle rich and powerful busy and intrigued.

This is nothing new . In ancient Rome, two months in a year would be seen, devoted to exotic and lavish entertainment, this is why the Coliseum was built. It kept the poor enthralled and distracted. 

The greater the disparity in living standards between the rich and the common people, the more complicated, superficial and grandiose the rituals and social standards of the rich become. It also sets the ridiculous standards of success and happiness, to which the poor might aspire.

Practicality is sacrificed at the altar of ridiculous fashion. Character and human values are replaced by gaudy displays of wealth and glamour. So enamoured do we become that we often lose touch with reality. The fake become accepted as valuable and the things of true value are shunned. 

In this world did Swami Vivekananda ji visit when he went to England. He was mobbed by people and seekers of truth. We normally mock the unique because it differs from the collective. The great are nor ashamed of their uniqueness, rather they use into their advantage to attract people to their message and cause.

This also indicates that you can seize all my land and all my resources, but you shall never seize my soul or my beliefs. No wonder Swami Vivekananda ji is the youth icon of India 

I want to be a politician

My friend Jaiprakash Singh, runs the 'Sujata School' in Hyderabad and Moinabad. 

During my visit to the school he requested me to speak to and motivate the young students in class 10, who were shortly due to leave school for college. The easiest thing to do in the world is, to lecture others especially the young and dole out unsolicited advice. Rather than lecture I prefer to have a dialogue with the young, for they never fail to surprise me with amazing new perspectives and their boundless enthusiasm and energy.


We spoke about several things and then a quick poll of the students revealed a great surprise. Several boys and girls said their career choice was to become politicians.

Wow! I never saw that coming.
I later realised that, we often ask what, but rarely why?
I have no definitive answers but yes a theory. 

Most people dream of being powerful, rich or famous. In India all these three things are possible in one profession represented by the Indian politicians of today. Politicians are a force that is not dependent on any other group in society. They are just one step below God in social standing.
All they need is a fig leaf of concern and service. 

Politics is the only profession in which no pre-qualification, formal training, skill acquisition or training is mandated or required. Politics is open for admission to all, and it seems to require no study or hard work.

Traditional Indian society had four classes. 
1. The warrior class who held the muscle power. 
2. The priestly class who were custodians of society's knowledge and wisdom. 
3. The traders who had most of  the money and controlled commerce. 
4. The working class, who had the skills to provide products and services and also those who tilled the land, the farmers.  

This arrangement ensured that no one group controlled more than one lever of power. This provided balance in society because each group was interdependent on the others. The is why India was an economic success and social stability, and there was no social unrest or revolution for over 5000 years.

Now in post independent India there has been a convergence. The people with muscle power now also have financial and administrative power. They are the politicians. Sadly they have made irrelevant religion and education by subjugating and corrupting them.

Though there are exceptions, it is generally believed that politicians exist only to serve themselves. 

During their team as elected officials, they are magically transformed into business and property tycoons. Their wealth grows by leaps and bounds sometimes a thousand fold in 5 years.They usually live in palatial homes and estates, and are surrounded by incredible luxury.  If you smell an incredible amount of money, you can be pretty sure a politician is nearby. 


Politicians are extraconstitutional authorities. Yes I know about that humbug, that everyone is equal under the law and as per the constitution. Politicians are not under the law, they are above it. The entire government administrative machinery is at their disposal. Their power comes by controlling criminal elements, the law and order machinery, the keys to the vault etc. Politicians withhold funds from opponents and those who do not pay, while granting favours and projects usually to cronies, themselves, their kith and kin through front men or to others for a fee. They usually misdirect tax and regulatory authorities to harass and destroy any voice that speaks or even contemplates speaking against them. They are powerful and they have no qualms about demonstrating it, and flexing their muscles often.

Famous, they are. Other than film stars and cricketeers media reports primarily on politicians. They cover almost every action, and expression. They hang on to every word politicians utter, as if it were holy gospel. This encourages more useless and often harmful verbal diarrhea. The media uses this 'info-tainment' to often fake concern for the people and affairs of the nation to make money while irresponsibility abounds

Kids are impressionable and they learn quickly, particularly fast the things that are not good. Is it any any wonder that politics is the preferred profession for many youngsters?

Isn't it wonderful that India is the worlds's largest democracy?

Do you impoverish others when you enrich yourself ?

Recently while on a flight from Delhi to Pune India, my co passenger and I started a conversation.

We discussed many things but one question got me thinking. The gentleman asked me if I agreed with his contention that people became rich at the expense of someone else and thus made them poorer. We moved on to other topics but my mind kept returning to this question.

To answer this question we have to first review what we mean by rich.
I would say the rich are those who possess the ability to make independent choices of freedom, mobility, residence, food and to a great extent secure themelves, their families and their possessions.

In earlier days the wealthy were the "Zamindar" the landlords who owned large tracts of land who owned slaves and many landless people worked for the landlords for nothing but food. They were exploited and indeed the rich made the majority of people poor.Conquerers of days earlier whether it was Ghengis Khan, or the rulers of the Romans empire were such people.

From the dawn of industrialization, the rich were people who set up all the elements of mass production and their attendant features as mass communication, mass education, etc made who controlled large resources for production either as entreprenuers or as allocating agents in the government. Again by cornering resources and controlling means of finance, distribution etc they made themselves rich at the expense of the original owner of resources who remained poor. This also is an era of exploitation of the poor to make a few rich.

To take an example the birth of the automobile created a huge demand for rubber at the begining of the 20th century. In collusion with local authorities large number of native Indians were enslaved to extract the rubber in the Amazonian forest. As per the statement of Mr. Roger Casement, the British Consul General in Rio Di Janerio reported that to extract 4000 tonnes of Putumayo rubber between the years 1900 to 1911 over 30,000 South American Indians lost their lives.
The colonial rulers /powers were typical of this type of exploitation. This is rampant even to this day in many countries.

Not all Industrialists are robber barons, this was and is possible because they are more efficient than others and hence were able to offer high standards of living to their employees and their associates.

Nowadays a new equitable trend has emerged and that is based on knowledge. You do not need land or commodities to be rich but only knowledge. This knowledge can be in the form of a formulae to produce a material or even a sauce, the lyrics to a song, design for a chip. Wealth created by such efforts do not render anyone poor but increases wealth more universally.

While farming a tract of land only the farmer can use the land wheras when using a formulae several thousand people can be using the same computer program simultaneously and that is why those who focus on knowledge will create more wealth for the least effort. A bigger bang for the buck so to speak.

So my co passenger's wish that wealth be created without exploitation now seems possible.

However it is not going to be easy because Governments and educators are still applying outdated policies and education models more suited to mass production and an era that is not focussed on developing knowledge but the continuation of dogma which is increasingly irrelevant.

Power, money, friends and good manners

Every moment and every interaction can be a learning. Even an election to head a sports club.
I recently observed, participated and analyzed such an election.

There were two candidates Mr. Rich and Mr. Simple.

Mr. Rich was a very wealthy man whom several members seemed to be in awe of. He rarely came to the club or interacted with the members until canvassing for elections began. A relative stranger to the club and having little in common, only a few members socialised with the wealthy Mr.Rich. It appeared many people hung around Mr. Rich in the hope of gaining some benefit financial, political or social leverage.

Mr. Rich flaunted his money and his powerful connections. Many members deferred to Mr. Rich though many members privately confided that his presence and push was way over the top. Mr. Rich spent an enormous amount of money wining and dining members, making slick presentations and distributing brochures. Mr. Rich focussed on status and on his personal achievements of which he had many. However he had done nothing notable at and for the club or it's members till date. 


The other candidate Mr. Simple was a down to earth builder. Mr. Simple had served for many years on various committees, projects and activities of the club. He was at the club regularly and had many friends and even more well wishers who appreciated his visible contribution. 

Mr. Simple was approachable and tried his sincere best to resolve issues and address the concerns of members politely and respectfully. He had many shortcomings, but he was lovable.

Unlike Mr. Rich,  Mr. Simple in contrast wrote a simple mail to all members outlining his contribution, and the values he stood for. He stated that he did not believe in expensive dinners and parties but his track record of his contribution and his conduct to let members choose who was to be elected.

When the results were declared Mr. Simple had won by a margin which was the largest in the club's history. It appears that money and power alone or even together can rarely win hearts particularly of the well informed. My belief was reinforced that; 

"Friends and good manners will take you where money and power will never be able to take you"