English, our Friend or Foe?

Excitement has taken over at least some parts of the country with the victory of the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi. People are joining it in droves because they see hope of a new world. But it may not be such an easy path to beat. The ‘old world’ will always pull the strings backwards. Just recently, a leading UP politician again brought up an issue that gets flogged intermittently- English and its use in India.

Mr Politician vows that he won’t allow English to be used in Parliament. He rakes up again the language-is-culture issue. Through the berating of English, he hopes to come across as patriotic and supportive of the great Indian culture. I think that many people would agree with a few things: Beating up English proves nothing of your patriotic credentials; allowing English in the work place or school in no way means doing away with India’s beautiful, varied culture of a myriad languages; English is the language of the world.

If the argument against English is that all parliamentarians don’t speak it then probably someone needs to tell us which one language can bind Indians together. The truth is that if we favour Hindi or any other Indian language there’s enough reason for others to fight for their mother tongues to get that status. But English is as close to, or distant from, any part of India. It is for us to decide whether to make it our friend or foe.

A recent study by the NCAER threw up results that most of us would know instinctively. It said that people fluent in English earn 30 per cent more. Yet, only about 25 per cent of students get their higher education in English medium schools in UP, Bihar as compared to 75 per cent in the southern states. Currently only 20 per cent of Indians speak English of which four per cent could be considered fluent. The author of the study says, “Politicians who don’t like English are captains of a sinking ship. Higher education in English helps us get better integrated into the globalised, organised labour market.”

I can vet this. In the training I have done over these years I have had several people say to me that their lack of fluency in English makes them less confident. They say that travelling to other countries for this one reason makes them nervous. I can recall a case where this gentleman- with very sound credentials- refusing a promotion because it entailed going abroad and working in English.

Not surprising then that a country like China is pumping in big money to get its people fluent in English. A few years back, I remember, the Maharashtra government schools had started a course to teach English to its teachers.

We have a historical strength as we have a base in English already. We have plenty of trainable resource here. We just need to support, and build on it.

GIVING AND RECEIVING

Does generosity beget generosity? And does experiencing generosity of others make you more generous?

A bright bubble was burst recently by a study conducted by the Economics department of the Mumbai University when it concluded that it may not be so.

People in the model villages of Ralegaon Siddhi and Hiware Bazaar- led by Anna Hazare and Popatrao Pawar- were studied for their behaviour through experimental games and exercises. These villages have transformed from regular, drought-ridden poor hamlets of the ‘70 to models of co-operative success.

According to economic theory, people are usually self-involved. But prolonged campaigns of cooperativeness can make people more pro-social. These villages have been studies for people from all over the world and have received many awards for successful development.

However, the present experiment showed that while people in these villages had lived through the benefits of co-operative living, they showed a trend of contributing less to the community pool of resources (evidenced in the games they played in this experiment), especially when they had the chance to do so anonymously. The study concluded that a history of experience may not yet produce ‘unconditional cooperation’ in an individual’s value system. To produce results, there had to be a system of monitoring and punishment in place.

That’s sad news.

But then, it’s easy to advise someone else to be generous but we may find very strong reasons not to be so ourselves. How much of our income or time, for instance, do we contribute to public good? How much is ‘enough’ before we start giving to society at large? And do we want at least a ‘reward’ of recognition?

Personal wealth or comfort may not have so much to do with this. A field study of altruistic behaviour in the Netherlands- a wealthy nation- showed that only 5.7% of people under this game-based exercise, donated money that they won as a reward. Here again, the researcher observed, that anonymity of giving, lowered the generosity.

Some religions have charity embedded in their learning and practices. It can be easily observed that people of those religions always feel obliged- and delivered- when they give.

To give is to believe in abundance- that you will not be poorer without that money or time or whatever resource. And to believe in abundance and to live with that feeling is a boon in itself.

Judith Orloff, a psychiatrist, writer and blogger writes, “Generosity is a key element of emotional health and abundance. Generosity accelerates the free flow of everything positive in your life. Of course, when it comes to finances, a good job, smart investments and saving wisely are important. But beyond these essentials, the secret is to be generous, whatever your net worth.

Generosity is an expansive energy. You receive as you give. But you have to expend energy to get energy. Electricity happens from rubbing two wires together. Stinginess is constrictive. If you're on the cheap side, don't worry. But wake up! Realize it's a huge drawback; take contrary action. How? If someone gives you a nickel, give them a dime. Gradually, try to let go of the tit-for-tat mentality, a small-minded approach that sabotages abundance. Be the bigger person -- that's generosity. Also, help people out. Charities, tithing, donations. Give what you can; it doesn't have to be a lot. Feel the growing sense of abundance it produces, an energy which circulates far and wide. It'll find its way back to you. Maybe you'll win a jackpot, or perhaps you'll just feel better about yourself. However generosity plays out, you can't lose.”

So let us start or increase whatever we were doing so far. And not underestimate the giving of time. Maybe I’ll tip that good waiter a bit more and spend a few more minutes listening to my old neighbour’s stories. I will pop more notes into those donation boxes at stores where I shop and renew all the student support charities that fell through because the organisation in question never got back.

I wish you a great year ahead of generosity and abundance. Let us give some more.

Butter Chicken and Organisational Change

What does a young heir of a strictly vegetarian business family do when there’s a minor uprising in his company because employees want to be served meat?

In a recent book titled Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower, an essay titled ‘Butter Chicken at Birla’, written by Aditya Birla Group chairman, Kumar Mangalam Birla answers this very question as he recounts how his group adapted with the times:

When I took over the company in 1996 at age twenty-nine, after the sudden death of my father, no meat was cooked in Birla cafeterias, no wine or whiskey was served at company functions. Seven years later, we bought a small copper mine in Australia. The deal wasn’t a huge one, worth only about $12.5 million, but it presented me with a unique challenge of the sort I had not yet faced as chairman. Our newest employees were understandably worried about how life might change under Indian ownership. Would they have to give up their Foster’s and barbecues at company events? Of course not, we assured them.

But then several of my Indian managers asked me why they should have to go meatless at parties if employees abroad did not. At Marwari business houses, including Birla, the top ranks of executives traditionally have been filled with other Marwaris. I had introduced some managers from other firms and communities, and they had raised a valid point. I was genuinely flustered. My lieutenants were relentless — I had never faced a situation where my own people felt so strongly about something. Yet, at the same time, I knew vegetarianism was a part of our values as a family and as a company — a core belief! I had broken a lot of family norms, but I thought this one was going to be multi-dimensionally disastrous for me.

Fortunately, my grandparents merely laughed when I approached them with my dilemma: They understood better that our company had to change with the times.

It is a great sign of maturity for an individual as well as a corporation to understand and accept change. And, above all that, to comprehend whether the impending change will be for the good, the bad or just not be significant enough. Well, the AB Group is today one of India’s “most globalised conglomerates with operations in thirty-six countries in five continents, employing 136,000 people”, as Birla describes it.

But can change always be induced so easily?

Look at this case of Arundhati Bhattacharya, chairman, SBI. The more observant of you must have made a mental note of my error in the previous statement and some of you may have smiled, thinking of how habitual terms don’t spare even the most careful. But I must insist that she has been officially appointed chairman, not chairwoman or the more gender-neutral chairperson. This is no gender bias. Very simply- and interestingly- The SBI Act of 1955 provides for ‘Chairman’ as the highest post in the Bank. To call her anything else would actually require an amendment in the act.

So should such a change be initiated? What sort of a change do you think this would be? A major or a minor change? Something with immediate effect or a general adjustment for modern times? And would it impact Ms Bhattacharya’s position or standing in any way?

Your views are welcome.

I think that while it can be initiated just as a correction to accommodate modern realities. It doesn’t, really, adversely impact her position or that of women in general. It doesn’t belittle her in any way. In fact, I am quite sure, around the dinner table it may have provided just a bit of a chuckle. That women are in these positions, itself, speaks for the general trends in the business place.

So should we bring about change or not should be dependent on the expected impact and the cost of the change. We don’t need to sweat over the small stuff.

A Leader dies; A Leader is Born

The past few days have been witness to inspiring tales of two leaders: One who passed on from the physical world, leaving behind a big legacy of belief in the just; one who has only just begun to rise as the hope of lakhs of Indians who seek an idyll of clean governance and an uncorrupted environment.

One of the most telling picture that caught my attention last week was that of a young white man hugging an inconsolable black woman, mourning the death of Nelson Mandela who died at 95, leaving behind a country that is today fair and just, constitutionally; where blacks and whites have accepted that all people deserve an equal chance. Mandela spent 27 years in prison but stayed steadfast in pursuing his dream-- a dream that benefitted millions of people. His long walk to freedom-----become symbolic of the trials and tribulations that lie strewn on a path that only the brave dare to take- a path that is not yet paved, probably never before even treaded upon. Like the hero of the poem, Invictus, that was dear to him, he embodies the unconquerable one, the one who will stay forever to by what he thinks is right.

Three days later, closer home, Arvind Kejriwal won against Sheila Dikshit in a constituency from where she had won the last three elections. This deceptively dimunitive man led his Aam Aadmi Party to near victory in the recent Assembly elections in Delhi and is poised to form a formidable Opposition. Before he adamantly demanded a country free of corruption and accountability about two years back, all of us would have dismissed this as an impossibility in India. Ha! Governance without corruption? An honest political party? That was a contradiction in itself. But today, we all feel the warmth of that ray of hope. There is a sunny summer of hope within the dark winter of doubt.

True leaders believe. And they refuse to accept defeat. They may look very foolish when they start out or till they see some victory. But they aren’t there to make an impression. Their belief overpowers all other senses. And they don’t look behind to look if anybody is following them or not. People follow leaders because they give them the hope to believe that the impossible can become possible. History is full of such stories.

Our weakness or doubt or fear doesn’t allow us to take that courageous step. But when someone rises and seems to embody strength, we like to be awash with that strength and so we follow. We hope that his iron belief will help us rise to our potential too.

So does a leader start out in life wanting to be one? Unlikely. He or she is just one man or woman who is deeply affected by a thing, so much so that he cannot move on till that is resolved. And he is transfixed with the solution or resolution. There’s always a small start. And then the story snowballs and grows bigger and bigger. True leadership comes with a strong belief that mostly belies common sense or realism of its time. If it isn’t big enough to sound a bit impossible, it won’t make history.

A leader is just always a deeply and morally good person. He embodies the highest values and principles and rises far above borders of corporations, nations, castes, creeds, religions. Everyone wants to quickly claim ownership as if to own that reflected glory. But he is above all that- his spirit embodies mankind. He doesn’t measure his own power or reach. He is who he is. Victory doesn’t sway him; defeat makes him more determined.

This brings us to that endlessly debated question: Can, then, leadership be taught? My answer: Taught, maybe not in the traditional sense. But people can be inspired to challenge themselves, to rise beyond the ordinary and aim to realise their dreams. They can be inspired to think big. If people are taken through such lessons, in one mind among the many in that classroom, the seed of another revolution could be taking birth. After all, every great period or transformation started from that one, small story.

Rules, Once Again

This week’s news has been dominated by the rape assault by Tarun Tejpal, founder-editor of Tehelka, a publication perceived by many as the voice of the wronged. Tejpal did what ‘the bad guy’, the ‘others’ do. Not ‘people like us’.

Right on its heels came the news of a senior official in the Goa Film Festival, making lewd suggestions and harassing a young journalist.

Rape of course shakes everyone up a lot. But news of gross actions- stealing public money; not letting PDS ration reach the poorest of the poor; taking large kickbacks for political and business favours- don’t even surprise us anymore. Scam is no longer a four-letter word for saturated readers.

This brings me back to my previous post on rules and thinking on it some more. How do people break rules- be they legal or social or moral?

When a person feels powerful by his position, he often begins to believe that he is invincible. Professional achievement, a high level of influence in the big circles often makes him feels that there is no need for him or her to follow rules- that rules are for the rest to follow.

Breaking rules is a high. It is used as a symbol of power. So politicians keep flights waiting, bureaucrats don’t move files without monetary fulfillment and media persons expect differential treatment in the most ordinary of situations. A journalist colleague relates how a very senior bureaucrat once told her- “I can change A.M. to P.M”. ‘A.M’ referred to A&M, the magazine she worked for. She was a novice scribe then and this was her first job. He was letting her know what sort of reach he had. Another entrepreneur involved in an ambitious rehabilitation project in Mumbai told her – I’ve paid off everyone from XYZ to ABC.” He was assuring her that the project would take off without a doubt while impressing upon her, his reach. XYZ and ABC were the head honchos of the most influential political parties of those years.

And for a man enjoying the headiness of power, his crime is never too big in his eyes. 78-year old Om Prakash Chautala, five times CM of Haryana, was sentenced to a ten-year jail term on corruption charges along with his son, Ajay, this January. When the police came to his house to take him he asked the police, “But what did I do?”

That the young girl was an old friend’s daughter and a friend of his own daughter did not stop Tejpal. All he said was that it was ‘an error of judgment’ and he would atone for his act by stepping down from editorship for six months. For anyone else, that would be called a long, paid sabbatical. And other, more ordinary rapists are generally jailed for this.

And when they get caught- often exposed interestingly by a much less powerful person- the first reaction is of extreme anger. Then they flail their hands like caged animals before accepting that sometimes rules can be for the rulers too. Tejpal shouted at the girl the next morning for going and telling his daughter about what had happened. “How could you go and tell my daughter what happened?” he said. This, to him, was the graver misconduct.

People argue that quicker dispensation of justice can help bring down crime rates- and yes, this may be true. Regular people may commit fewer crimes but the powerful will always continue to challenge the rules. The association of power with breaking rules is too heady to ever lose its sway.


Your thoughts?

To Obey or not to Obey?

Rules, that is. This question popped up in my mind, once again, as I was on my flight back to Mumbai and doing what I enjoy most- watching people. The air hostess announced landing and requested everyone to shut their machines and devices. The lady next to me, totally engrossed in her iPad since the moment we started the journey, did not pay attention as her ears were blocked with her headphones. The hostess then came up to her and requested her to comply. She looked up and made a few gestures towards doing so. But as the hostess went away, she continued to play the game she was playing. I itched to tell her that she was doing something with potential to jeopardise the lives of everyone in the plane. Her nonchalance annoyed me.

Well nothing so drastic happened. We landed safely. But I continued to ponder over the issue on the long trek out of the airport. To begin with: Why did that annoy me? I thought it was because someone was disobeying rules. Rules are made for the benefit of people, at large. Few disobedient people can cause trouble for the rest of us. If today, you are not allowed to even carry a nail file in cabin luggage as it a ‘potential weapon’, it’s because someone carried weapons at some time and held up a flight.

A rule breaker can cause direct, fatal damage to others. Highways report serious, fatal accidents every day because of motorists breaking speed limits, driving inebriated or overtaking wrongly. The people killed in these terrible mishaps are often those who got hit by such a rule-breaking driver.

Then there are ‘rules’ which are not in any rule book and not punishable offences. Example: Making a queue at a counter – a rule not really written anywhere I think, but socially desired- is defied and disobeyed by almost every Indian. A queue expands horizontally and becomes many queues and everyone is then for himself. If you’re polite or just not able to push, chances are you’ll be waiting for your coffee till dinner time. Just yesterday, I stood with my token in hand at a doctor’s while a lady without a token just barged in and got her work done before everyone else.

And there are rules which defy logic. Until recently when a prominent industrialist fought in court for his right to fly the national flag atop his home, doing so was a punishable offence. But there’s no penalty on selling and buying uniforms, complete with military insignia, for children to wear for fancy dress competitions. If the first somehow insults the nation, how doesn’t the second, I have often tried to understand. Or, how positions of learning and valour- school and college principals, military chiefs, judges and police commissioners-are caricatured, uncensored.

So should one follow rules completely or reason out which ones to follow or simply follow those that can have a punishment attached for non-compliance? I think most people follow the last type. We follow only the rules that have some sort of penalty attached to them. This doesn’t mean only legal rules. People also follow social rules which are unwritten for fear of rejection or disapproval of their social class.

So people comfortably break traffic rules because they know it costs just a bit of money to get away. Littering or breaking queues doesn’t make you encounter an upturned nose or glares from people around as you would face in say, Britain. So those who walk up to bins in New York, just chuck that chips packet on the road when back in India. We are, however, largely conscious of attending religious functions and ceremonies or office celebrations even if they don’t interest us because that can lead to social rejection.

And then again, History is all about those who broke rules, not about those who followed them. The venerated national leaders are those who refused to follow the rules of the Raj; the greatest scientists are those who refused to accept the norms.?

So should we follow rules or not? What do you think?

SUMMER

The Great Bombay Summer has come early this year and has had the whole city panting. And not just that, but the brutality of it is has been felling down even the strongest.

There’s been no respite even in the mornings and evenings. So, for the average office goer, who does at least an hour-long commute to and fro home, this may spell decreasing productivity. Lately I have noticed this in the training room. People are more restless and seem exhausted in the morning too. If they have to commute back from one of those overcrowded railway stations like Kurla and Dadar and the connecting transport is unreliable, the restlessness is even more. They are ready to compromise on the breaks if you could just leave them a bit early so that they can dodge the rush-hour madness.

So what can be done to counter this downer? May be employers can offer efficient transport, at least connections to railway stations, if not all the way home. May be people can work longer hours and take an extra day off instead of coming for half-days on Saturdays. May be offices can give air conditioners as Diwali gifts.

Interestingly, summer lowers productivity in other parts of the world too, though for different reasons sometimes. I learnt this when I was on a scholarship many years back in England. I was interning in a large corporation. Around mid-morning, I happen to look around and notice that there was almost no one in his or her seat. A girl was asking her boss if he had any work for her or could she step out for a couple of hours and he generously said she could take the afternoon off. I asked a colleague to explain what was happening. He told me that it was, after all, summer. After a cold winter the spring had brought a promise of better times. And then suddenly it was summer and the sun was shining. And everyone who wasn’t in his seat that morning, I discovered, was actually outside, in one of the two pubs just down the road, standing and drinking beer and sunning himself. I went back after lunch and found the office as empty. It stayed that way on every sunny day of the few weeks that I worked there.