Tricky business

So, what’s wrong with raunch behaviour? If women want to show off their body, if they want to make out with each other in front of men, why should men object? Don’t men get turned on by scantily-dressed women and their perfect bodies? Don’t men fantasise about women-on-women action? Don’t men desire women who invite them over for sex? Heterosexual men don’t require great intelligence to see and enjoy the benefits of the ‘raunch culture’. It’s a bonus for them.

So, there’s no sympathy for women there. Unless, of course, the man happens to be the parent – or perhaps the brother – of a young woman displaying, or participating in, raunch. Everything changes then. Our cultural and moral values come to the fore. Even liberal-minded and tolerant parents, who normally allow their daughters to choose whom they want to be with, have active superegos; they know when and where to draw the line. They are not keen on seeing their daughters behave raunchily in public, nor permit them to act in amateur porn videos.

So, what should a parent do? Lock up the daughter in her room? Don’t think so. Set down rules of behaviour and discipline the daughter? May backfire. Since raunch has the signs of anti-authority, rebellious behaviour, challenging the daughter on the subject may have a negative effect. To add to the trouble, more and more girls are growing up watching music videos and films with provocative scenes, or reading ‘Page 3’-type material in the media, thinking and believing raunch is an acceptable code of conduct. Managing this is indeed a tricky business for a parent.

So, what’s the solution to this hyper-sexualised, hyper-commercialised situation?

According to Ariel Levy, author of ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’, and quoted in www.macleans.ca by Judith Timson in a September 2005 article called ‘Girls gone raunch’, it’s “Making the young women in our lives aware that this is the culture they live in, but they don’t have to take part in it, they will still be attractive to men, because people have managed to recreate the species for some time now.” It’s nurturing in them the sense, she says, “that you’re a real person, you’re not here to put on a performance, the main focus of your energy does not have to be how do I get a guy. You will find a partner. But the main project is you. What do you want to be? What do you want to think about? What makes you happy? What turns you on?”

Ultimately it is, Levy says, “…instilling in young women a sense of the value of their humanity.”

Is raunch counterproductive?

If raunch means sexual freedom through a perfect body, then it automatically rules out half the women in this world. It discriminates against those who do not have a perfect body. It shames these women into thinking – and believing – that they have missed their chance in life. If I were a woman with a not-so-perfect body, I wouldn’t be too happy about this situation.

No matter how confident women feel about this phenomenon, the ‘raunch culture’ is likely to impact women more than men. Yes, of course, men will continue to ogle at scantily-dressed women and think of sex, but of greater importance is how women will feel about being left out or about the ‘raunch culture’ not meeting their expectations.

I mean, can this ‘raunch culture’ really empower women? Can it give them the sexual freedom they desire? Can it make women more successful in their professions? Can it give them control over their lives? Can it propel women onto positions of leadership?

Or, is the ‘raunch culture’ just another way of living out male fantasies? Playing into the male sexual freedom? If that is so, isn’t it counterproductive to the women’s movement?

Female chauvinist pigs

These days, the urban way of life in India is quick to follow the American mass culture. It’s apparent in the way the youth has picked up the signals, the customs and the fashion from America; and, within this group, it’s the teen female universe that is most visible in aping the latest trends. Teen girls, wearing low-riding jeans with short, tight tops accentuating their body, are now a common sight in Indian metros like Mumbai and Bangalore – giving the ‘Page 3’ crowd a run for their money and the urban male a substantial pep in his voyeuristic pleasures.

From high-school girls to even some women in their mid-forties, women in urban India have begun to embrace a certain sexuality which was not there before. They are more free with their bodies and their voices, spelling out to the rest of India how far they have come from the days of their mothers. They feel empowered and ready to take on the world. Particularly the world of men – men with their voyeurism, their appetite for sex and their obsession for dominance. Urban Indian women are now ready to meet men on equal terms, fuelled by the new fillip they get from advertising and the media.

But, what if this sexual freedom, this raunchy display of fashion, this demonstration of woman power, this meeting of male sleaze with a show of more female skin, further stimulates the male ego and appetite? What if this new feminism encourages a new pornographic culture in India? What if this overt behaviour actually jeopardises the lives of many more women and increases crimes against them? Would these sexually-liberated women at the forefront of this ‘raunch culture’ then turn around and stoically say, “We have only ourselves to blame?” Or, would they still blame the men?

If you’re looking for answers to these questions, or ways to challenge them, then maybe Ariel Levy can help. In her recently-released book, ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’, New York magazine writer and editor Ariel Levy discusses this very topic from an American perspective. She believes there is a rise of a ‘raunch culture’ – a porn-drenched female sexuality – in America which has popped up all over TV, music videos, fashion, advertising and publishing. She feels the dominance of this new ‘raunch culture’ has superseded all other sexualised behaviour in women in America and has created a ‘female chauvinist pig’ who mimics men, wanting power in a misogynist kind of way.

Is this a new mantra for feminism and the sexually-liberated woman in America? And, how is it affecting the American mass culture? Are women actually colluding to create a more pornographic world for us all? Ariel Levy discusses all these questions in ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ – but I’m not sure if she adequately answers them all. Or, answers them convincingly enough for us to believe her. To know more about Ariel Levy’s ‘raunch culture’ why not read these reviews on salon.com and Guardian Unlimited? And then go feast yourself on the book? It might offer a window to our own urban cultural evolution.

Hooked and relieved

Women should be sexually attractive – and active.

That’s the kind of message we get in the media. Newspapers, magazines, TV, hoardings, posters, the Internet, video games… you name it and you’ll find images of scantily-clad women everywhere. Cleavage, midriffs, thighs, behinds. All in a day’s exposure. ‘Sexual attractiveness’ messages are all around us. And you know something, nobody’s complaining! Looks like, we’re all hooked to it.

Sex is no longer a taboo subject – at least not with teenagers in urban India. They are talking about it openly, gathering information from the media and from each other, doing away with the age-old necessity of parental guidance. On talking to a group of teenagers in Mumbai, I learnt that they got most of their ideas on sex from media portrayals and the novels they read, apart from discussing the matter amongst themselves. They felt the media was talking about sex and dating all the time – as if encouraging them. Although some girls also mentioned (reluctantly, I felt) that they sought advice from their mothers and older sisters, according to them, this was considered an old-fashioned thing.

The boys didn’t seem to worry too much about being (or not being) physically attractive to the opposite sex; but the girls did, quite a lot. What was common in their talks – the girls, that is – was the fact that looking physically and sexually attractive meant looking and staying thin, wearing attractive clothes (the words ‘western’ and ‘tight-fitting’ came up a couple of times), showing off your body. They didn’t see this as sinful or indecent or being promiscuous. That’s how things were today, they said.

The teenagers didn’t feel that there was anything wrong in the way sex was displayed or promoted in the media. Or that, there was too much of it. In fact, they looked out for such media coverage. Media stories, TV serials and novels talked openly about pre-marital sex or sex between unmarried couples, and that was ‘cool’ with them. However, they all agreed – and here, both boys and girls joined in – that, finding actual sexual experience was a lot tougher than what or how it was portrayed in the media. I guess many parents will be relieved to hear this.

Sex and censorship

It’s silly of me to write about censorship of sex. If sex had been censored long ago, I may not have been here writing this blog.

Jokes aside, it’s not sex per se – not even the sexual themes in literature, art, film and photography – that I connect with censorship, but it’s the display and expression of the degradation of human sexuality which I feel needs monitoring. Not because I’m a moral high priest, but because I feel young minds are sensitive and can be severely influenced by pornography without proper guidance.

Arzan, a fellow blogger and whose views I respect, cautioned me on taking this moral stance (please read his comment on my previous post), pointing out that self-governance is better than adopting the role of moral police. I agree with him, but with a small condition: that there should be guidance for children; because, young sensitive minds may not have the maturity to understand the ‘severity’ of pornography.

By ‘severity’ I go beyond the normal expression of sexually-explicit images (I know, why allow this also?) and into the domain of material that eroticises violence, humiliation, degradation and other explicit forms of abuse. Some aspects of pornography not only presents their subjects (particularly women) as sex objects, but goes further to show them as being physically harmed, as enjoying pain, humiliation, torture and rape. Some material even depicts the actual killing and dismembering of their subjects during explicit sexual scenes.

The Nicolas Cage film, ‘8 MM’, directed by Joel Schumacher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker, gives us a window to such pornography, although the film itself does not discuss the issue in any detail. Is this kind of sexually-explicit material objectionable? To me, it is. Particularly, if it is easily accessible to children. It simply sends wrong signals. Ask yourself: what would an adolescent or a teenager, with access to such material on the Internet or on his mobilephone, make of it? Is it ok to humiliate your partner during sex? Is rape a normal expression of sex? Does satisfying sex mean leaving your partner battered, bruised and bleeding?

Should we censor this kind of pornography? That’s the moral question.

Yes, I feel we should; but I’m not sure how to or how much of it to. No, I cannot prove that pornography causes violence. Nor can I prove that such pornography poses overt physical threats to women in our society. Nor can I prove that a teenager growing up watching BDSM videos will grow up to be a rapist or a misogynist. So, Arzan, you’ve got me there. Perhaps, self-governance is the right path to follow. But I do believe that pornography that links sex with violence is unlikely to bring in great benefits to our society and culture. Then again, who am I to take this moral stance?

Erotic imagery and the social question

How clear are we in the depiction of human sexuality in our culture?

Sex in fashion photography – as rendered by photographers such as Bob Carlos Clarke and Bob Richardson (about whom I’ve post-ed recently) – is really the tip of the iceberg. The bigger market is in pornography – touted as a $50-billion-a-year industry internationally, give or take ten billion dollars. Even then, some say this is a conservative estimate. God only knows how large this industry is in my own country.

The fact is, erotic imagery is no longer restricted to magazines like Playboy or Penthouse, not to mention art galleries which add a slightly different flavour, but is now available on cable TV and the Internet right in our homes and our offices. Add to that devices such as PDAs and mobilephones which allow exchange of pictures, and the reach for such imagery becomes phenomenal. Obviously there’s a large market for this, whether you and I like it or not.

As a full-blooded heterosexual male, I am aroused by the kind of sexually explicit images of women that are accessible to me, say on the Internet, and I understand why there is such a huge market for such images. However, the matter worsens to an extent when I consider the networked life we all lead. For instance, consider this:

Every time I receive an erotic image from a friend over email or on my mobilephone – even as a joke – and forward it to another friend, my participation in this matter becomes more than that of a viewer. I become a trader of erotic images, even though I do not spend a penny on it to be included in the $50-billion-a-year industry. So, what gives? What gives is a social issue which is larger, wider and more dangerous than what we may believe it to be.

Of course, there are laws against pornography – specifically for the creation and production of it. But what laws are there to stop me from visiting a website of erotic images by a famous photographer? Or, for viewing and forward-ing a sex ’toon, a sexually explicit photo or video clip over email or mobilephone?

No-one seems to know much about this. No clear directions – whether from legislative bodies, courts of justice or from religious and social groups – seem to be available either. And, considering the fact that many children have easy access to cable TV, mobilephones and the Internet, this issue of erotic imagery in our culture is really a serious one. Yet, neither parents nor heads of schools and colleges have spoken up against it.

Can we continue to be ambivalent on such serious issues?

Goodbye Prince of Darkness

“Sex…happened to fashion photography in the 1960’s.”
– Bob Richardson, photographer

Bob Carlos Clarke’s death (my previous post) late last month is not the only loss to the world of fashion and celebrity photography in recent times. In early December last year, another icon of fashion and celebrity photography, Bob Richardson, had passed away. Unlike Clarke, aged 56, who committed suicide by jumping under a passing train in Britain, Richardson, battling schizophrenia, died of natural causes in his home in New York at the age of 77.

In a PDN newswire, Daryl Lang writes, “Bob Richardson brought drama and sexuality to fashion photography in the 1960s... He incorporated sex, drugs and violence into his photos, reflecting a turbulent period in history and creating images that were more about people than about fashion. He was one of a generation of photographers who changed the look of fashion photography in the 1960s...”

According to Anita Hunter from the New Millennium, in her perspective on the history of fashion photography, Richardson played an important part in fashion and celebrity photography:

The 1960’s were years of major change in fashion and fashion photography. As Bob Richardson observed “Sex…happened to fashion photography in the 1960’s”. Women’s roles in society were being questioned and the youth quake was having an enormous cultural influence. Fashion trends were not just flowing down from Paris but were coming up from street culture. In Britain the terrible three David Bailey, Terence Donovan and Bob Richardson were instrumental in introducing spontaneity and sex into fashion photography.

Taking Richardson’s work further, Peter Marshall of About.com says:

The sixties are often seen as the decade when fashion photography discovered sex (notably through the eroticism of Helmut Newton and Jeanloup Sieff), but Richardson’s great contribution was mainly angst. His models acted out love affairs that were falling apart, and doing so with scenes of great emotional intensity - women deserted in cafes waiting, waiting for lovers who would not appear, even women desolate at the graveside. Much of his visual language came from the world of the movies, in particular the work of Antonioni. However, although his pictures could show women in tears, they could also depict the lighter moments, for example with models giggling together.

In Richardson, boundaries were blurred between life and work, between fiction and fact, between photographer and photographed. The photographer became a celebrity of sorts, in particular through his long relationship with his favourite model, Anjelica Houston, daughter of actor, director and screenwriter John Huston. Through his life and work Richardson set an agenda for fashion photography of later decades, one that still has a great influence today.

Photographer Bob Richardson had a reputation for being difficult to work with which was earned though long battles with editors as well as often erratic behaviour elsewhere which was echoed in the moody intensity of his work. He has been called ‘the William Burroughs of fashion photography.’

Lang of PDN agrees: 'Richardson, who suffered from mental illness throughout his life, developed a reputation as a rebellious artist who fought with editors and stylists. In a 1997 interview with PDN, Richardson said, “I don’t know why you’d want to be labeled anything else but a rebel. The opposite of a rebel is a coward, and believe me, I’ve worked with a lot of cowards.”'

John Eder’s personal account of meeting Bob Richardson can be found in The Brink. It’s called ‘Goodbye Prince of Darkness’.

"It's an addiction"

It’s not just ‘Crash’, which took away the best picture of the year award, among others, in this year’s Oscars, that toys with our imagination and our guilt. All of photographer Robert Carlos Clarke’s books do the same. And, with titles such as Obsession, The Dark Summer, White Heat, Insatiable, and Shooting Sex, who would disbelieve it. Clarke’s work has always been difficult to understand and controversial in terms of acceptability, but he has definitely created a name for himself as one of Britain’s, and the world’s, greatest photographers.

Born in Ireland, Clarke studied art and design in London before embarking on his career in photography. He is known to have become a photographer while chasing a part-time model who became his wife, but left him later because of his infidelities. Clarke had always been obsessed with sex and the female body. “With an obsessive compulsion I’ve taken more or less the same photographs over and over again during the past three decades,” Clarke has written in a passage published on the web site of his book Shooting Sex. “It’s not a job – it’s an addiction.” He wanted his pictures to make us aware that sexual desire is not something that we need feel guilty about or disturbed by.

But many were disturbed. And Robert Carlos Clarke’s work was not readily accepted by the media and the critics. His pictures, with titles such as ‘Unexploded Female’ or ‘Adult Females Attack Without Provocation’, showing sexually-charged rubber-clad women, not only shocked the world, they did not endear him to the feminist movement either. Some of his models included Rachel Weisz, Jerry Hall, Caprice, but he preferred to photograph women he met on the streets or in night clubs. According to Clarke, they were more natural as models. But he successfully combined his fetishistic photography with commercial work (for Levi’s, Volkswagen and Smirnoff), real life images (his collection of still-life is pensive, even emotional), and celebrity portraits.

Once, when quizzed about his unexpected propensity for photographing still-life, Clarke had observed casually, “I shoot celebrities for a living, but photographing rocks is more peaceable than photographing rock stars.” A sample of Clarke’s work, as a slideshow, can be found on his website (you should be above 18 years of age to view this). And, you can read an interview he did with Eyestorm here.

Robert Carlos Clarke, photographer. Born 24 June 1950. Died 25 March 2006, aged 56.

[Citation: www.bobcarlosclarke.com, Photo District News, British Journal of Photography, The Guardian, The Independent, Sunday Independent Ireland, Telegraph, The Times.]

Crash: masterful storytelling

There is tension in our lives. Deep inside us lies our outrage against society; our bigotry, our intolerance. Yet, it’s not an oft-visited place, and sometimes we never do, for we live in civilised societies with our families and friends, in our self-assured comfort zones. But sometimes we are driven to it through sheer carelessness... or by accident. And then we find, hidden from plain sight, another world; a world of anger, fear, prejudice and resentment.

These are difficult feelings to discuss in an open forum such as this blog. Even more difficult to express in a film. But Paul Haggis does so admirably in ‘Crash’. He brings together a cross-section of people from different ethnic backgrounds and social class, all victims of a racist society, living out their own sense of alienation. Haggis tells us who these characters are, but not what will become of them by the time the film ends. So, we are stuck in this fascinating situation.

The storytelling, the dialogue, the acting are all incredible. The characters say what they feel, yet they feel impotent when it comes to managing their own lives as the plot suddenly turns upon them. In the end, they come out as humans... something I had hoped for all along. 'Crash’ is a storyteller’s delight and Haggis does a masterful job.

The rebirth of outrage

Americans seem so friendly by nature, yet they are outraged by the happenings in their own land or around the world. If it isn’t about Iraq, it’s immigration policies. If it isn’t about outsourced jobs to India, it’s abortion. Why is outrage becoming such a defining feature of American life and politics? What causes this outrage? How do Americans respond as outraged citizens of the world?

If you want to know the answers to these questions, you may find the latest print edition of The Economist useful. It carries a story titled ‘The Rebirth of Outrage’ discussing this very issue. “Most Americans pride themselves on their tolerance,” mentions the story, yet “these days all too many American politicians, amateur and professional, are going around the country stirring things up.”

Want to know what America's outrage is all about? Why not read it right here and find out?

By any means necessary

The use of force or violence to bring in change has been in effect from time immemorial. Kings, dictators, political parties, terrorists, the state police and even individuals – like a schoolteacher, a parent or a husband – have been known to use force to induce discipline and change in people. Looking at various political regimes and ideologies throughout history, or perhaps at one’s own life, we know it works. No-one doubts its practice… or effectiveness.

But, is it all bad? When faced with resistance, it seems like a logical recourse. From the point of view of self-defence, its inevitability cannot be denied. Some say that violence is show of ‘lack of intelligence’ because peaceful methods are always available to us. However, people do resort to violence, sometimes at the slightest instigation, to take what they feel is their own, or to effect a desired outcome, by any means necessary. And, to hell with peace and civilization!

What brings on this violence – or the thought of violence?

I’m sure there are many theories on this, and the one that appealed to me, when I came upon it recently on the Internet, is one which was proposed by René Girard some forty years ago. In his theory, Girard connected violence, literature, mythology and religion, stating that human culture is based on sacrifice as the way out of mimetic, or imitative, violence between rivals. Not an easy theory by any means, but if the idea of violence repulses or attracts you, why not read on?

Jeramy Townsley, in a paper from 2003, titled ‘The Theory of Violence, Religion and the Scapegoat’, describes Girard’s concepts as follows [pretty heavy stuff]:

The starting point for Girard’s theory is “acquisitive mimesis”. Girard proposes that much of human behavior is based on “mimesis”, an all-encompassing expression of imitation, but focuses on acquisition and appropriation as the object of mimesis, contrary to most of the extant literature on imitative behavior (Girard 1979, 9). Girard describes a situation where two individuals desire the same object; as they both attempt to obtain this object, their behavior becomes conflictual, since there is only one object, but two people. “Violence is generated by this process; or rather, violence is the process itself when two or more partners try to prevent one another from appropriating the object they all desire through physical or other means” (Girard 1979, 9).

In this way, Girard takes issue with the dominant conflict models that focus on aggression or scarcity as the sources of conflict. Such models propose that “many of our problems are the direct result of concentration of wealth and power” as well as “exploitation and colonialism” (Farley, p. 17-18). While this perspective goes a long way in explaining various types of conflict that societies experience, Girard believes they are insufficient to explain the diversity of situations around which we find conflict. He believes that these insufficiencies are avoided when conflict is, instead, modeled on acquisitive mimesis, or “appropriative mimicry” (Girard 1979, 10).

He sees aggression as part of the problem of conflict, not part of the cause. Since conflict appears to be fairly ubiquitous, yet aggression is limited only to certain types of conflict, aggression may not be the correct model. Similarly, scarcity, while also a potential cause of conflict, again is not the source of the issue according to Girard. He does not believe that scarcity in the animal world would explain the violent challenges by lower males against dominant males. Imitation, however, also common to both humans and animals, he believes has more explanatory power to describe the origin and perpetuation of violence (Girard 1979, 10).

Yes, it’s pretty heavy stuff. I’m still trying to make sense of it.

A little bit of theory from the rabble-rousers

In the name of protecting freedom of speech and religion, many political and religious leaders incite people into violence. It doesn’t take much, just a little spark. How do they do it so quickly? There’s no secret really; they play on human behaviour. You see, simple social and psychological patterns have the makings of great destruction embedded in them. In the wrong hands, who can tell what this kind of human behaviour will do?

Here’s a little bit of theory I picked up from the rabble-rousers:

When our sense of physical and psychological self has been violated, when our personal property is invaded, our blood begins to boil. Because this violation, this invasion of our property, means that the systems that provide the statutes of law, justice, fair trade and personal protection in our society have failed. In turn, our faith in our safety and security reduces drastically. We feel victimised. We feel we have lost our sense of democratic autonomy. We wish to re-possess (or reclaim) our safety, our security, our sense of respectability. We seek retribution.

Not only do we seek retribution, going by our constitutional rights, we seek out opportunities to defend our property and whatever is contained within its space by whatever means necessary. This is an interesting situation because, in this situation, our sense of self and property actually becomes our sense of self as property. Waves of self-preservation overwhelm us and, along with a disdain for failed law and order and the justice system, we assume power in our own hands to rectify the situation that has gone wrong in our personal world.

What’s fascinating about this human behaviour is that it attracts popular sympathy, gains fervour through incitement, and becomes a movement. A dangerous one at that because, at this point, the movement believes it is above the law, and so, quickly turns into an uncontrollable mob. Political and religious leaders know this theory all too well.

Are we held captive?

My previous post is worth a read. Not because it’s great writing, but because it describes a grim reality. It recounts an instance from our lives – an instance which is becoming increasingly common in our country and even around the world.

The instance I’m referring to is the story of a US-published book on world history which was distributed and sold in India. The book happened to contain a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed in one of its pages. The cartoon was deemed disparaging – ‘blasphemous’ was the word used, I believe – by the Muslim community in India and the book had to be withdrawn from the shelves of the bookshops and from the libraries.

This had me thinking. Was the book withdrawn because it hurt the sensitivities and the sensibilities of the Muslim people in India? Or, was it withdrawn because everyone feared that the incident would upset the Muslim people so much that it would lead to secular violence in the country? Of course, nobody wants secular violence. But suppose the answers to these questions are a resounding ‘yes’, then what meaning does this hold for the citizens of India?

Does it mean that the Muslims in our country – a minority group – are actually holding us captive? Are we living in fear in our own motherland? If so, what does this mean for us – the free citizens of the largest democracy in the world? What social or cultural behaviour, what code of conduct, are we advocating for each other? What moral values are we passing on to our children? What democracy are we talking about if one small cartoon in an imported book on world history – with limited distribution – has the majority of the population in the country running for cover?

"History of the World" under criticism

Here’s a new turn on the Prophet Mohammed cartoon controversy, right here on our doorstep. This time, ‘Crossword’ – a favourite bookshop of mine – and the West Bengal government seem to be involved. So, what’s cooking? Here’s what I know:

Apparently, ‘Crossword’ imports a consignment of ‘History of the World: Earliest Times to the Present Day’ – a 900-page book on world history from a US publisher – and happily sells it to its customers. The West Bengal government also buys a consignment from ‘Crossword’ and distributes it to school libraries as a reference book.

After thousands of copies of the book have been sold, somebody notices that, in a chapter on Islamic world (page 171 I’ve been told), there’s a black and white sketch of Prophet Mohammed. As reported by Reuters, “It shows a short and bearded Prophet, clad in a robe, is seen holding the venerated Black Stone and placing it in a cloth in the Kaaba in Mecca after Islam's central shrine had been cleared of idols and sanctified in the seventh century.”

The word spreads. Muslim leaders become angry. They protest. According to the Reuters report, Hasan Ahmed Imran, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Bengal, has risen to the occasion and said, “The sketch is in extremely bad taste and is blasphemous. The book should be immediately withdrawn from everywhere in the world and the guilty people must apologise.”

‘Crossword’ takes the book of its shelves and stops selling it in India. The West Bengal School Education Minister, Sri Kanti Biswas, also rallies around: “The books will not be used in any of the schools of Bengal and all of them will be taken off the shelves of libraries.” The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fog Rasmussen, puts off his state visit to India.

For those interested, here’s a short narrative on the book:

History of the World: Earliest Times to the Present Day
Author: John Whitney Hall (Ed.)
Publisher: World Publishing
Format: Hardcover, 912 pages
Category: History, World

Overview (from www.BookCloseouts.com)
“This impressive publishing landmark traces the history of the world from the building of the pyramids by the ancient Egyptians to the war on terrorism in the twenty-first century. Vibrant prose brings to life each epoch in this majestic account of the story of mankind. History of the World is the skillful work of twenty-five renowned scholars, each an authority in his own field, who have joined under the editorial direction of noted historian John Whitney Hall to produce an awe-inspiring and original text nearly a million words in length.”

The book was probably first published in 1991, but I’m not sure of this fact.

Quite a remarkable feat

Is India a democracy in the conventional sense (take the US as your benchmark) or merely a melting pot of separate communities collected under a common banner? Are people from all regions, communities, cultures and religions represented equally and fairly in our democracy? Does the government’s rhetoric reflect the opinion of the people from all sections of the demography?

Questions, questions, questions. When it comes to criticism, there’s a lot you can say against India. And, if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll admit that you’ve shared your disapproval of your country on many counts. Guess what, you’re not alone. We are all responsible for this. India just doesn’t shape up in front of us. So, here’s a question for you: How would you view your government when it comes to encouraging social change in the country? Would you give them a poor rating or an average one? Or, perhaps, something better?

In spite of all the allegations against our ministers, I’d give the government a high score. And, why not? Look what they’ve got on their hands: A billion-plus population, poverty, illiteracy, and a multitude of languages, cultures, religions and diseases to deal with. Then you have the corruption and the personal agenda of the ministers and the bureaucrats. And, on top of that, a growing need for liberalisation to keep pace with the pressures of globalisation. A handful, wouldn’t you say? Yet, India continues to maintain its status of ‘a democracy’. Quite a remarkable feat, that.

Social change beyond the state

“The democratic power of civil society becomes relevant at both these points of vigilance: first as a means of resisting tyranny within the state and laying the foundations of political equality and popular control, and second as a means of building democratic counter-power to the anti-democratic sources of power outside the state, which have long been eroding the power of the franchise.”
[Hilary Wainwright, “Civil Society, Democracy and Power” chapter in Global Civil Society Yearbook 2004/5]

Wherever there are relationships between people, between people and organisations, even between people and the environment, there is hope that harmony will prevail. There is hope that social change will improve our living conditions, our cultural and moral decadence, and remove the barriers that now stand between us and a better world.

This may sound like a utopian view, but according to Hilary Wainwright, this can happen through civil society organisations exercising their rights against repressive political (and economic) power... without resorting to violence. As a case study, she cites the example of the World Social Forum (WSF) which began as a local movement in Porto Alegre in southern Brazil, but has now become a globally-reputed forum exercising international influence and achieving a great deal of political equality for many.

To me, the WSF is symbolic. What the WSF really represents is a model for others to follow. A model that supports the idea that social change beyond the state is possible – and can be achieved in a democracy. That, together, people can ensure that instances of injustice and oppression are reduced, that social order is achieved in harmony, that moral integrity is restored in a society, that elected governments are persuaded to implement their election promises.

It’s not everything, but it’s a start.

How civil do we have to be?

Someone puts Holi colours on a boy. Someone else molests a girl. Stray incidents, but with severe consequences. Soon after, a fight breaks out between groups of people – presumably those representing the boy and the girl. Perfectly-civil residents pick up arms and become militant. The Police step in with lathis and tear gas – create more trouble with unruly behaviour. People protest against Police. Police retaliate. Shots are fired. People die. Curfew is declared in an otherwise peaceful town.

Perhaps it’s not as simple as that. But, that was Navi Mumbai last week.

What went wrong? How did a civil society turn violent? Are the citizens of Navi Mumbai so frustrated that stray incidents of misdemeanours can bring out the worst in them? And, what about the peacekeepers of our societies – the Police? Are they also so frustrated that they need to display unruly behaviour and use arms on demonstrating citizens? Citizens, like you and me, with the right to their franchise!

Mind you, we are talking about the world’s largest democracy here. A democracy built on precepts of non-violence; a democracy sworn to fight terrorism.

If democracy is about people with power, does it mean that, in India, we have too many people with power? Should we, then, redefine democracy to give it another meaning more suited to India’s social, cultural and political topography? And, what about civil society as a means to building a democracy… as a source of power for democratic change? Do we need to re-constitute this?

How civil do we have to be to exercise our social, cultural and political rights without resorting to violence?

How democratic are we?

It’s one thing to be a democracy with multiple political parties, free elections and a parliament made up of elected representatives; and another, to live by equality in decision-making, exercising our franchise politically, culturally, in a family and in personal relationships. After all, to be truly democratic, we need to have control; we need to be free to make our own decisions.

The question is: Are we in control of our decision-making which affects our lives everyday?

How transparent is our government in sharing their decision-making with us? Or, our parents, the schools and colleges we’ve studied in, or our employers for that matter. How often have we felt undermined? How often have we thought of rebelling against the system? How often have we lost hope, believing that those who represent us do so not in our interests, but only to whet their appetites or to promote a personal agenda?

What then is the sign of a true democracy?

Should we introduce some sort of testing mechanism to assess the democratic nature of our systems? Should we institute a quality certification – an ISI or an ISO – to monitor the purity of our democratic process in real-life application? Should we reward faithfulness to the system and levy penalties for deviation?

These thoughts are absurd, of course. Except for figures for population and voting rights, there is no measure for democracy.

Historically, the institution of democracy has varied enormously… and is likely to do so in the future. No-one can claim its true form. At best, if it leads to liberalisation of political, social and cultural rights, we should feel happy. Democracy may have its roots in equality, but it’s not an easy concept to manage. Equality is neither for everyone, nor easily attainable.

Power and democracy

In a democracy, power comes from its people.

No matter how much power India wields within its boundaries or internationally, one of its foundations has been to safeguard the freedom of its people. We don’t ride roughshod over others. And, we don’t disregard the cultural, social or religious rights of our people. On the contrary, we protect those who need our support.

Sometimes, this is a hindrance to our growth – or even to our political motivation. There’s always the temptation to make a compromise here or there; step on a few toes. After all, we have a lot going for us at the moment.

We are on the verge of becoming an economic power. Yet, we need to fight off protectionist barriers in various global forums that stand in our way.

With our build-up of military strength, we are also an emerging political power. Yet, in places, our borders are under dispute and we are unsure of some of our neighbours.

And most disturbingly, we are yet to control political instability in our country.

But, if in a democracy, power comes from its people, maybe there’s something we can all do to improve our situation. We can mitigate undemocratic ideologies or regimes that destroy our civil rights. We can introduce internal reforms in our social circles to accommodate and benefit from new systems and technologies. We can defend those who need our protection.

Therein lies the power of our democracy.

What are we going to do with so much power?

India can now import nuclear fuel and technology, thanks to President Bush’s go-ahead signal. The question is: What are we going to do with so much nuclear power? Well, the whole world’s looking for the answer to that question too. But, right now, India is too busy living out an euphoric dream to give a proper answer to the world.

I say ‘proper answer’ because, I believe, no matter what India’s answer is to the world, the world is unlikely to take India at face value. And why is that? Simply because the world is not ready for another nuclear power. North Korea has already told everyone to get lost, and Iran seems to be talking a similar language. No one is happy about this. So, why add another ‘doubtful’ member to the list?

But, why should the world doubt India at all? We do not support terrorism. In fact, we have resolved to fight it. We have never broken any laws on weapons-making. Nor have we declared war on any country, in spite of serious differences with some of our neighbours. We are a peacefiul and responsible democracy. We need nuclear power to support our fast-growing energy needs. Faced with a similar problem, every developed and/or developing nation has – or has tried to – follow this route.

So, is India’s story so simple? The world thinks not. Both India and the US are under heavy criticism. Here’s an excerpt from an editorial from The Economist which voices a few of the world's concerns:

“By allowing it to import nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors, America will be directly easing the bottlenecks in its weapons programme (bizarrely, also agreeing to keep up fuel supplies even if India breaks America's other anti-proliferation laws, as some of its companies have in the past). Worse, India's experimental fast-breeder reactor programme, ideally suited to produce plutonium for warheads though previously claimed to be for civilian purposes, is to be exempted from all safeguards. That will allow India in future to produce scores of weapons a year, not just a handful.”

We want your money

It’s not a plea anymore. It’s almost a demand.

Gone are the days when India pleaded for financial aid. When India was the epitome of the Third World, sitting in the corridors of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, offices in Washington DC and other financial institutions with its begging bowl. India of the yesteryears was a country ravaged by over-population, poverty, illiteracy, the caste system and lack of infrastructure.

But all that has changed. India now exports software and technology solutions to the rest of the world. The US, the center of world technology, is its primary market. What’s more, the US has poured in financial capital into our country, helping to set up businesses and R&D centers, as well as welcoming outsourced services. This has created a boom in the country for various industries, generating much-needed jobs for millions. Many more Indians now have money in their pockets to spend on their education and lifestyle… and invest elsewhere.

Our Finance Minister, P Chidambaram, summarises this situation well: “This is a very different India from what we were 20 years ago.” And, I believe him.

What is also interesting to note is the balance of equations this has created between India and the US, and India and the world. No longer is India a country with a begging bowl, but has now evolved into an economic power in its own right, asserting itself with logic and credibility. India’s newfound power comes from India’s pool of talent, which seems to be envied by everyone and is much in demand. India has something the world wants; and it is now on offer at a price that makes doing business with the world not just economically viable, but profitable.

However, there is a caveat. For India, the world may be the market, but India cannot live on talent alone. Talent is only one of the components of business and economic power. And, who knows this best than our very own Finance Minister. And so, he makes it clear to the person who matters most to India at the moment: US President George W Bush. According to a recent BBC news story, Mr Chidambaram told business leaders accompanying President Bush on his visit to India, “Let me tell you, we want your money.” Adding, “I want your technology also. I want your good management policies and good governance norms.”

A little in-your-face maybe, but at least he doesn’t beat around the bush.

The blues in the US can put India in the red

India will become very important in the near future.

Indians have a strong entrepreneurial spirit and it has now surfaced for all to see. The world is no longer a stranger to the success of Indian businesses, spearheaded by the likes of the Ambanis, the Tatas, the Narayana Murthys, the Premjis, the Birlas and the Bajajs. Even the Mittals and the Hindujas from around the world are ready to put on their Indian garb and share their crowning glory with India.

Our story is that of a liberalising economy, something that is helping our recent rate of growth. The service sector has blossomed, with new industries growing in areas such as tourism, healthcare, management and communications consulting, besides the IT and ITES which the whole world talks about. Among the developing economies, our potential is second only to China, only because our business culture is not as thrifty, nor as protectionist, as the Chinese. There is every reason to believe that we shall continue on our growth path, at least, for the next ten years.

But, as things are, are we not overconfident?

For one thing, we are too reliant on the US for exports. The fact is, so are many other countries around the world… increasing the debt burden in the US. This makes us vulnerable to an economic downturn in the US, as it does for the other countries.

I mean, what if the blues hit the US economy suddenly? What if, for some reason such as a rise in the real interest rates, there’s a recession in the US? It’s bound to have a negative effect on India, right? A recession on US soil is likely to push the US economy into adopting protectionist measures. And this, in turn, is likely to cause a fall in demand for Indian exports to the US. As a result, our growth rate will be lowered, pushing our economic balance sheet into the red.

Meanwhile, with an over-populated agricultural sector which has very little going for it, and an industrial sector rapidly invaded by the Koreans and the Chinese, India may not have too many choices left for its economic development.

Isn’t it time we looked inwards and directed some of our entrepreneurial spirit for India’s long-term growth?

The colour of colonisation

It’s true that the Western world has poured in billions of dollars into the developing world. And, I’m not just talking about aid agencies here. Private investors and businesses have done their part too, while keeping an eye on opportunities that promote future markets – and profits – for them. For, the idea of colonisation needs time to take effect. The West knows this. They’ve had practice in the past.

It’s also true that this colonisation has a strong red-white-and-blue feel to it… an US-UK stamp of success, with France hovering somewhere in the periphery to pick up the spoils. It bears the robust mark of capitalism – the only global system that has stood the test of time. It sees opportunities where others fail. It mobilises natural resources and population to deliver the highest returns. It applies science and technology for both human and capital gains.

But what’s most important to remember is that colonisation creates wealth like no other global system does. The further the idea of colonisation spreads, the larger the size of the wealth pie gets. Colonisation is the biggest wealth enabler I’ve seen so far… with the red-white-and-blue being the key enabling power. The more the red-white-and-blue remains engaged in colonisation, the better are our chances of success. And, who can complain about that!

A call for colonisation

In a stable and orderly world, the economy flourishes. In an efficient and well-governed world, the markets are open for investment and growth.

A government unable to meet these standards suggests economic risks for the whole world, not just for one country. It signifies a weak government. A government resting on inefficient economic policies, fiscal deficits, balance of payments, inflation, unemployment, poverty… Everything that stands in the way of a brighter future for everyone.

To the advanced economies of the world, a weak government is in need of correction. Even rescue. It calls for the re-establishment of economic order in a world of chaos. It calls for a crusade for prosperity… Even if this crusade means using coercive forces to deal with the economic disorder in another country. It calls for help from the outside – a foreign hand, so to speak. And, of course, the advanced economies of the world are there to see this through.

Robert Cooper, now a diplomat and foreign affairs advisor to the European Union but reputed to have been a great inspiration to Tony Blair, had once said: “The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one most employed in the past is colonisation.” But today, he acknowledges, the old-school colonisation of the imperial British isn’t enough. It requires better packaging. According to Cooper, “What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values.”

[Citation: Apects of India's Economy]

The new developing economy

There's a change in the course of things. India is developing at a rapid pace and it is influencing the entire world. One of the key facets of this new India is that, as a modern developing economy, it has taken a fresh look at commerce. Yes, poverty is still around us and cities are still the drivers of wealth, but the old government promoting a socialistic self-sufficient India is now adopting a more liberal path towards commerce. As a result, capital is now more freely available for business enterprises. And, a spirit of commerce is in the air.

In turn, this is fuelling the urban vision that the liberals have always advocated - as against the socialistic self-sufficient path that India has followed for the last 60 years - building cities and towns and railways… slowly reaching into India's rural heartland. This is the new India, the new developing economy.

Funnily, there's a history to this new ideology as well… or, so I learnt recently.

In August 2001, Sauvik Chakraverti, in an essay titled The Liberal Vision, India from the archives of the Centre for Civil Society, quoted a significant point from a letter dated 1717 from the Directors of the East India Company. Apparently, the East India Company advised their Governor at Fort St. George (which developed to become Madras, now renamed Chennai): “Make your settlement a mart for all nations, that being the way God Almighty of old promised to make Jerusalem great.”

Although I'm not sure where Chakraverti got his information, it is nevertheless quite a revelation. In fact, in the essay, Chakraverti goes on to say, “Because of their belief in the simple logic of commerce, the British pursued urban development that led to the building of many great cities and countless hill-stations.” And, they built roads, railways, satellite towns and basic infrastructure to support the growth of commerce in the urban centres. Perhaps because they believed, or so says Chakraverti in his essay, “With free trade, and aggressive urbanization, India will be a rich country.”

The future matters

"The future matters… it cannot be avoided or ignored just because we are necessarily ignorant of what it will bring."
- Bill Emmott, who recently resigned as the editor of The Economist

It's difficult for a developing economy to sustain itself. Although various economic models have been tested over the years, still no developing economy has been able to arrive at a model which is viable. Most models rely on foreign capital and, without help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as foreign private capital, they would probably be nowhere today.

India has attracted its fair share of this foreign capital. Thankfully so, as it has helped expand the Indian economy and initiate growth we had not seen before. The Indian economy is booming, visibly so in the IT, ITES, telecommunication, construction, and consumer retail industries. Now, India not only has cutting-edge technologies at its disposal to build its economy, it also participates in creating solutions for other markets abroad. Most importantly, India has somehow managed to leapfrog onto the service sector, using homegrown talent, bypassing the entire rigmarole of industrialization which has plagued many a developed nation.

The Indian government's policies are also changing in tandem with this changing economic scenario - to position India as not just a developing nation, but a force to reckon with in the future. All hands are on deck. And the forthcoming budget is likely to be a promising one, fuelling further growth for the country. If the future mattered to India before, it matters even more now. No longer shall we remain ignorant.

Whose fault is it that we are poor?

Whose fault is it that we are poor? It's ours, of course. We are 100% responsible for our impoverished state - and for our debts to the outside world. Our impoverished state is a result of our unsound economic policies and our lack of skilful debt management.

But, aren't our economic policies also endorsed by the international financial community? Don't the international financial institutions and leading economists around the world help shape the financial policies of debtor countries like ours every year? Isn't this debt management just another facet of globalisation?

Perhaps, the fact that we are poor isn't really a country-specific issue. Rather, it's a global issue. What happens to us affects the whole world. I mean, if India's poverty is erased, the whole world becomes a better place to live in, right? In other words, should we perform badly in economic and financial terms, the whole world risks to lose. And, that's quite a responsibility.

The prosperity of other countries around the world is inextricably linked to our own prosperity. And, vice versa. Isn't it time we looked at eliminating poverty more holistically?

The path of least intellectual resistance

I'm a pessimist. I see doomsday approaching every time there's a war somewhere in the world, or an MNC spreading its wings in my country with an eye on a billion consumers, or when I read about our political leaders and their scams. An alarm goes off inside my head and I immediately take a defensive stance, bemoaning every decision the government takes as unfriendly. But, when it comes to action, I do nothing.

Why do I do this? Why do I assume that everything will go wrong at the slightest provocation? Why do I suffer the role of a doomsayer when I needn't? Why do I do nothing when I should be?

As luck would have it, I took a few days off just to chill… to think things through for myself. A sort of 'time for introspection' you might say. Then, thanks to a few friends, I saw the film 'Rang de Basanti'. And, it wasn't long before a few home truths came to me: Indeed, I am a pessimist and a cynic. I see the faults too quickly, ignoring the benefits. I see the destructive nature of things and do nothing constructive myself. I jump to the negatives, and miss out of the opportunities which exist along with the same negatives.

In short, I take the path of least intellectual resistance. Because, it's easy to do.

Perhaps we should all see 'Rang de Basanti' once again.

Ideas into action

Translating ideas into action seems to have been the key message in the closing plenary session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos. And, what ideas were these that required action from the rest of us? Well, as you can guess, globalisation was on top of the agenda. Not to be outdone were other areas of global interest: competitiveness, education, ethics & values, financial markets, history, human rights, labour, monetary policy, NGOs, peace & security, politics & diplomacy. Climate change, global inequalities, and cultural/religious divides followed close behind.

Globalisation had taken top slot at the WEF as national boundaries were vanishing, and along with them, many of the obstacles that had prevented the idea of a ‘one world’. This was possible, thankfully, not only due to the availability of technology and telecommunication networks, but also due to the emergence of greater liberal views, visible in both political and business leaders from across the globe.

Former US President Bill Clinton summarised this feeling in his interview with Klaus Schwab, Founder and Chairman of WEF: “Because of globalization and technologies like the Internet, the opportunities for making such impact have increased… The power of private citizens to do public good is greater than at any time in history.”

Good words; good thoughts. But how would these thoughts and ideas translate into action? And, what I would like to know is, how concerned are these WEF leaders in translating their ideas into action? Would they not be more concerned about ensuring that their individual country or company becomes more prosperous in the process of globalisation, despite what happens in other parts of the world? Would any country or company be really willing to sacrifice itself for the greater good of the world?

I think not. But then, mine is a cynical view of the world. Perhaps visionaries like Bill Clinton are right when they say [as a measure of one’s final achievements], “Make sure that people are better off when you’re done.” Perhaps that’s the real objective – and the real measure – of seeing ideas into action.

No reason for pessimism

Tomorrow, where will our energy come from?

I don’t mean the physical energy that our body requires, but the kind of energy that sustains us as a collective community… a living planet. That means, I’m talking about the supply of oil, thermal and nuclear power, natural gas, fossil fuel, etc. that sustain us everyday. The world’s demand for energy is increasing, resulting in increasing prices of not just fuel but almost everything, and there doesn’t seem to be a way out.

A rapidly growing world population and economic growth all around have big roles to play here. For instance, escalating demands for energy in developing countries like India and China are large contributing factors in increasing demand for world energy. Then, there are issues like trade barriers, a lack of transportation infrastructure (which once again relies on oil), global warming and climate change, and the threat of terrorism affecting supply.

There’s an urgent need for diversifying the supply of energy, managing the demand-supply ratio, finding and adopting ‘cleaner’ technologies, sharing information, winning public trust… so that the world’s need for energy in the future is not in jeopardy.

That ought to be a neat summary of the world energy issue at hand. So, imagine my surprise when I learnt from the World Economic Forum that there’s no looming energy crisis in our hands. That, there is adequate supply of energy for the whole world. That, the market and the governing energy institutions are (and will be) ready to absorb the energy shocks of the future. Apparently, there’s no reason to worry, nor to be pessimistic.

The seeds of wealth

There was a time when we commonly used a phrase ‘the wealth of natural resources’ to describe our world. It conjured images of a safe, green, life-giving landscape... bountiful fruits, grains and water... a fertile soil... and below that, an abundance of minerals and fuel to last us for ever. The seeds of wealth were found within these natural resources and renewal was a natural process we didn’t need to dwell on.

Inspired by this wealth, or perhaps out of boredom or some dissatisfaction with it, we embarked on new ventures, setting up industries using technology and inventive minds to create wealth of another kind: A wealth of machines and power and production; of transportation and housing and labour. A new process was in place. It was called industrialisation; and it created wealth out of mass production.

As a result, people flocked to these industries in groups. Groups grew into towns, towns into cities. Along with this came pollution, industrial waste, soil deterioration, deforestation and hazards of health not encountered before. Healthcare became important; so did education and entertainment. Many more inventive minds got down to work and planted seeds of wealth of another kind: A wealth of services to cater to our every need.

Our needs grew astronomically, and the safe, green, life-giving landscape with its wealth of natural resources was stretched to its limits. Even industrialisation, with its technology and mass production, was not enough to save the world. Questions soon arose about sustainability and development, but no-one seemed to find the right answers. The romance of nature with its wealth of natural resources dried up in our minds. What was left was a debate over ‘needs versus nature’, a dualism unresolved even as I write this blog.

But all is not lost. Not yet, anyway. The World Economic Forum – with industrialists, economists, politicians, scientists, environmentalists, social activists, journalists and even religious leaders – is not giving up on this agenda. Inventive minds are at work once again. Soon they’ll plant the seeds of wealth of another kind.

Of man himself

We view nature according to our desires. We draw links between our desires and the land we live on... the environment that sustains us. We imagine our living spaces and design them to suit our desires... to suit our needs of the hour. We are caught in our own ego-centric, narcissistic sense of beauty and function. And, we tailor our environment to fit this imagination... this delusion... this man-made reality. And, to hell with the environment! The environment is there to serve us, after all.

Of course, there’s a scientific reason to all this. An anthropological one too. A cultural one. A historical one. An economic one. And, oh yes, a political one. Yes, there are reasons galore to justify how man sees nature; and what man does with it. It’s all in the name of progress. We all believe that things are going to get better and better... and that, technology is the basis of this progress. That’s why we’ve celebrated industrialisation – the producer of chemicals and everything synthetic. Not to mention a nuclear, or some other esoteric, utopia which is the answer to our present-day angst-ridden fears.

Our lives are no longer dependent on nature and divine guidance. They are now guided by reason, science and technology – the works of man himself.

Divided views?

If we have divided views on God, do we also have divided views on nature?

World religions disagree on their perceptions of God, on how people should relate to God in its singular or various forms. Yet, at the core of every religion we have people and their faith; the same people who destroy the environment in order to sustain themselves and/or make gains in material possessions.

How would such world religions respond to a concept like environmentalism? Would they support their followers in order to win and keep their faith? Or would they agree, like some environmentalists do, that people are expendable in order to protect nature and celebrate the sacredness of Mother Earth?

Nature and the Hindu philosophy

“When the Lord desired to create life, He created the Sun, Moon, and Earth, and through them a congenial atmosphere for life to come into being. Therefore the Sun, Moon, Earth, Stars and all objects in the universe jointly, not individually, create the atmosphere for the creation, sustenance, or destruction of everything in the universe.”
[from Swami Vibudhesha Teertha, Sustaining The Balance]

Much of India’s history and culture can be traced back to the Vedas. It is from the Vedas that Hinduism as a religion originated and formed the basis of everything that a Hindu does today. And, it is from the Vedas that every Hindu forms his or her holistic view of the Universe.

Hence, it is natural for a Hindu to be close to nature. Because, Hinduism as a religion is close to nature. Hindus worship the Sun, the Moon, the rivers, mountains, forests, animals... everything that is an integral part of nature. The relationship between man and nature is at the very centre of Hinduism. Hindus can actually perceive God in every object in the Universe.

“That which sustains all species of life and helps to maintain harmonious relationship among them is dharma. That which disturbs such ecology is adharma.”

The Vedas have taught us this for thousands of years.

from Land of the Spotted Eagle

Once more, man and nature… according to Standing Bear.

The Lakota was a true naturist – lover of Nature. He loved the earth and all things of the earth, the attachment growing with age. The old people came literally to love the soil and they sat or reclined on the ground with a feeling of being close to a mothering power. It was good for the skin to touch the earth and the old people liked to remove their moccasins and walk with bare feet on the sacred earth. Their tipis were built upon the earth and their altars were made of earth. The birds that flew in the air came to rest upon the earth and it was the final abiding place of all things that lived and grew. The soil was soothing, strengthening, cleansing, and healing...

Wherever the Lakota went, he was with Mother Earth. No matter where he roamed by day or slept by night, he was safe with her. This thought comforted and sustained the Lakota and he was eternally filled with gratitude.

From Waken Tanka there came a great unifying life force that flowered in and through all things – the flowers of the plains, blowing winds, rocks, trees, birds, animals – and was the same force that had been breathed into the first man. Thus all things were kindred and brought together by the same Great Mystery.

Kinship with all creatures of the earth, sky, and water was a real and active principle. For the animal and bird world there existed a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them. And so close did some of the Lakotas come to their feathered and furred friends that in true brotherhood they spoke a common tongue.

The animal had rights – the right of man’s protection, the right to live, the right to multiply, the right to freedom, and the right to man’s indebtedness – and in recognition of these rights the Lakota never enslaved the animal, and spared all life that was not needed for food and clothing.

This concept of life was humanizing and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of things; it gave him reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all. The Lakota could despise no creature, for all were of one blood, made by the same hand, and filled with the essence of the Great Mystery...

The old people told us to heed wa maka skan, which were the ‘moving things of the earth.’ This meant, of course, the animals that lived and moved about, and the stories they told us of wa maka skan increased our interest and delight. The wolf, duck, eagle, hawk, spider, bear, and other creatures, had marvelous powers, and each one was useful and helpful to us. Then there were the warriors who lived in the sky and dashed about on spirited horses during a thunder storm, their lances clashing with the thunder and glittering with the lightning. There was wiwila, the living spirit of the spring, and the stones that flew like a bird and talked like a man. Everything was possessed of a personality, only differing with us in form.

Knowledge was inherent in all things. The world was a library and its books were the stones, leaves, grass, brooks, and the birds and animals that shared, alike with us, the storms and blessings of earth. We learned to do what only the student of nature ever learns, and that was to feel beauty... Bright days and dark days were both expressions of the Great Mystery, and the Indian reveled in being close to the Big Holy.

[Citation: Virginia Commonwealth University, American Nature Writing, Spring 2003 program, Ann M Woodlief, Instructor. However, I am not certain of the origin of this document, nor the accuracy of its content.]

A reverence for nature

“People still revere and are intimately entangled with nature in India.”
– Valmik Thapar, Indian tiger expert, wildlife conservationist and author

Man has always been connected to nature in India. According to ancient Indian science and medicine, nature and man are essentially one. Man is said to be the microcosm; the Universe is the macrocosm. What exists in the world exists in man. Man is nothing but a miniature world containing the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether) which constitute the minerals, vegetables and the animal kingdom.

However, India has suffered over thousands of years. She has lost much of her fertile soil, her forests, her flora and fauna, her biodiversity. With an ever-bulging population, we are rapidly eating into our stock of renewable resources. It’s likely that, sometime in the not-so-distant future, we shall exceed our ability to sustain ourselves.

But until that day comes, we can still celebrate what India has to offer us. And that’s plenty… according to a spectacular six-hour mini-series on PBS/WNET, the details of which I found in a story called A Reverence For Nature while surfing the Internet

The mini-series, titled INDIA: LAND OF THE TIGER, showcases “the natural history and wildlife of the great Indian subcontinent. Hosted and narrated by Valmik Thapar, this ambitious documentary features footage of remarkable scope and beauty, and explores the various ways humanity is connected to nature through myth, legend, culture, and religion.”

Something to learn from the Indians

[from the Native American Indians; not the Indians from India.]

Folklore has it that the Native American Indian considered the environment his brother. The earth, the moon, the sun, the winds, the rain, the rivers, the mountains and the trees… were his relatives – to be treated with love and respect. And, the American Indian taught his children so, generation after generation. The legacy was passed down not only to ensure the present, but also to guarantee the future.

Thinking about the future was an enormous responsibility for the American Indian. And this responsibility, naturally, demanded a vision. A vision put things into perspective – that he was only a small part of a much larger picture. Without a vision, an American Indian – and his tribe – was nothing. He believed, without a vision, everything turned destructive. He believed polluting the waters, cutting down forests, killing animals for pleasure… were disrespectful and counter-productive to life.

The American Indian believed that life was a cycle of welfare and harmony; and all his decisions were driven by this. Hidden in this belief was the key to his universe: the re-generation of life. The only things that upset this cycle, that destroyed the essence of the universe, were a generation’s greed and its unwillingness to sacrifice for the future. These teachings go back to the very beginnings of the American Indian people.

Whenever businesses talk of corporate social responsibility (CSR), I am reminded of the Native American Indians. Perhaps, the business leaders of today – and their political counterparts – have something to learn from the American Indians.

The CSR conundrum

Should companies invest in CSR? Of course, they should. Corporates have all the money. If they don’t, who will? I mean, the world has problems, right? Problems have solutions. But these solutions come at a price. Adopting and implementing these solutions require money which only the corporates – and wealthy philanthropists – can afford to provide. So, they should.

But ask whether it makes business sense for companies to invest in CSR, and you might get another answer. Or two. Or, perhaps, none at all. Go on, ask a corporate bigwig if he or she can demonstrate concrete financial benefits of CSR for his company, and see what happens. In spite of what you may read in the media about Indian corporates benefiting from investing in CSR by initiating programmes for children, adopting villages, saving forests, etc., the figurework for investing in CSR is inconclusive.

The fact is, there is very little evidence to demonstrate that CSR actually benefits a company financially or strategically. And, this is not just in India; it’s a global phenomenon. Of course, there is a view that suggests that investing in CSR has positive impact in public relations and the image of the company, but there is nothing that can be measured in money value to substantiate benefits that add to the company’s bottom line. Not yet, anyway.

So, is there a way out of this conundrum?

I feel there are bigger questions to be asked: For instance, do companies have a social responsibility at all? And, does this responsibility serve the interests of the shareholders? If the answers to both questions is a resounding ‘yes’, then companies could think of sacrificing business profits for doing good in this world. Because, in this case, it may not matter if the figurework for the investments is conclusive or not.

CSR is selfish

Earlier this month, a leading financial daily in India carried a supplement on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The stories were interesting to read, coming from some of the largest Indian corporate houses, who proudly narrated their involvement in CSR and their caring for our country.

There is no doubt that India, with its billion-plus population, much of it still below the poverty line, and millions still struggling for their basic rights, needs caring. And, it was heart-warming to know that Indian corporates were not only aware of this, but they were actually acting in their best interests on several issues that have dogged our country for centuries.

However, when I noticed that most of the stories covered in the supplement were shadowed by advertisements from those corporate organisations, a doubt did arise in my mind on the intent of publishing those CSR stories. Wasn’t this blatant publicity? Shouldn’t they have used a little more subtlety?

Looks like, even talking about CSR costs money, let alone justifying the investment. So, what if those corporates get a little PR mileage out of it! CSR, like any business, needs a pay-off or two. The fact is, those corporates have invested in CSR for the benefit of the poor, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged, and the marginalised in India. And that’s what counts.

As the headline in the opening story suggested: CSR is Selfish. So it seems.

What's the right thing to do?

Should companies sacrifice business profits for the good of the world? After all, business is about making profits. And, after all, businesses have a responsibility to their shareholders. Faced with the dilemma of doing good for the world against the pressure of handing over profits to shareholders, what’s a corporate organisation to do? Surely, corporate organisations are responsible enough to do the right thing!

Earlier this week, an anonymous visitor (whoever you are, thank you for visiting my blog) left a comment on my blog in response to my mention of ‘scenario planning’ methods used by the Royal Dutch/Shell Group in formulating corporate business strategies. While I celebrated Shell for their foresight and their planning tools, my anonymous visitor pointed out Shell’s corporate strategies in Nigeria, going back fifteen years or so – strategies which had (and, perhaps, continues to do so even now) caused severe environmental and economic damage to Nigeria.

Apparently, Shell’s oil drilling operations in Nigeria had done considerable environmental damage to Ogoniland (home of the Ogoni tribe) in the Niger Delta. The damage included oil spills, natural gas flaring, pipeline construction through farmland, destruction of fish and aquatic life, poisoning of land and water…leading to devastating environmental, health and economic consequences. When the Ogoni protested, Shell had taken a hard-line, conniving with the several interim governments in power, arresting, imprisoning and even executing many Ogonis. It had become a human rights issue.

Sadly, this is not just a problem from the nineties. The Ogonis have endured their troubles for close to fifty years, ever since Shell began drilling oil in Ogoniland in 1958. How legal and ethical are/were the ways of Shell? Why has the Nigerian government allowed this to happen? Why hasn’t the world responded to the troubles of the Ogoni?

These are important questions. And, they set me off wandering on another track: How concerned should a corporate organisation be about the impact its business has on people, the environment and the world at large? Shouldn’t this question be considered and answered much before the organisation sets up its business? And, if the answer to this question offers an outcome detrimental to the interests of the people, the environment and the world at large, shouldn’t the organisation re-work its business strategy?

There is a lot of talk about corporate social responsibility (CSR) these days, but doesn’t CSR really start when the business idea is conceived, rather than later, after the profits are made? If the business idea isn’t any good to the world, shouldn’t it be destroyed before it destroys people and the environment? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

In implementation lies your success

The test of a strategy is in its implementation. This may be a big blow to the egos of those who pride themselves as strategists, but it’s not enough to design a great strategy. You have to implement it and evaluate its results. In managing change, this holds the key to your success.

Strategy alone does not bring in change – or motivate it. Organisations not only need to identify the right new strategy, but have to implement it correctly so it reaches all levels of the organisation. To survive, and thrive, strategy alone is not enough. To achieve any major transformation in your organisation, you need to look inside.

The usual “looking inside” that accompanies new strategies amounts to re-organisation. And, in many cases, laying off people. Heads roll, sadly, mostly in the lower rungs of the corporate ladder. In an effort to re-organise, a top-of-line advertising agency I know, laid off several staff from their Studio (who were invaluable to the Creative Department), while promoting many of their senior executives to new positions. That’s right, CEOs and senior managers who like to re-organise prefer to keep their positions intact while cleaning up the rest of the organisation.

Don’t get me wrong. Implementing change does necessitate re-organisation, but it doesn’t have to be at the cost of someone’s job. You can energise your team to participate in the change initiative by making them understand how their work contributes to the organisation’s success and how their efforts can determine where the organisation will be in the future. By bringing your team face to face with the need to change and explaining the external pressures the organisation is facing at present. By defining the new strategies and asking for your team’s support in implementing them.

You can break the strategies into smaller parts and find team members who are enthusiastic enough to champion these mini-strategies. People who can own and drive the change – serve as role models. These could be department or divisional heads who have influence because of their positions or designations. Or others, who are leaders not because of their positions, but because they have the ability to connect with people and influence them. Encourage these individuals and support them to ensure their efforts don’t stray from the overall change strategy.

You can support the change with new tools and systems. But don’t be in a rush to implement them. Start on the premise that your team will be unfamiliar to these new technologies and systems, and may resist them. Communicate clearly how these new tools and systems will work and benefit each group or individual team member… as well as the entire organisation. Design training programmes to familiarise your team and ease the progress of implementation.

You can introduce incentives to encourage your team’s progress or on the positive results they bring in. One of the main reasons for successfully implementing change in a large Indian corporation was instituting awards to recognise change-agents, serving them as role models for others to follow. Another, an IT company, carried out a “listening exercise” and offered incentives for new ways of implementing the desired change.

Most importantly, contrary to felling heads during the change process, you can treat your team with dignity and respect. Manage their feelings. Help them deal with their emotional reactions to change and the new environment. You just can’t go wrong with this.

Change is inevitable

In the corporate world, as in our lives, change is inevitable. Yet, you’d be surprised how inept most organisations, and individuals in them, are in understanding and managing change.

Don’t believe me? Then think about those thousands of dotcoms which perished because they failed to see Internet venture capital drying up. Think about those European and American, even Indian, companies manufacturing automobiles or consumer electronics or white goods which didn’t see the influx of the Japanese and the Korean models in the marketplace.

I know of a cement tiles company, once a pioneer and market leader, which got totally marginalised because it didn’t see the market demand change to ceramic tiles. Another, a consumer electronics giant, lost huge chunks of market share to Korean competitors because it couldn’t introduce technologically superior, and cheaper, products quickly enough. A multinational agro-chemicals company closed a part of its India operations under pressure from farmers and social reform groups because it misunderstood the Indian sentiment.

That’s right. Talking about it now seems easy. But, corporate genius or not, change is hard to handle. Even a new entrant in the market can change the dynamics of the entire business. Be it evolving markets, technological innovations, new government policies, environmental laws, world politics, or a myriad of other changes knocking on your organisation’s door… change can give anyone sleepless nights. It’s tough to see change coming, anticipate its force, and take steps to face its challenge. Sometimes, the best CEOs can be the worst in foreseeing the future.

So, where does this leave the rest of us? When your own corporate world is faced with the inevitability of change, what do you do?

Well, I hate to say this, you’re already a little late. Change has happened. And, it is happening this very moment as you read this blog. Since dreaming about winning over Nostradamus on your side isn’t going to help, the best you can do is prepare for what’s coming next. And, keep at it, endlessly.

Here’s a short note on how you can make a beginning:

If you’re a corporate bigwig, or a part of the corporate or a brand strategy team, you could look for new strategies. It helps to read books on the subject, attend workshops, hire a consultant or two for fresh ideas, spend money on research, and gather all the intelligence you can. Don’t get overconfident about this. Before you’re in a position to assimilate what’s happening, let alone design new strategies for your organisation or your brand, further changes are likely to envelop your world. Don’t give up. You’ve made a beginning and that’s what counts. It’s all part of the preparation.

Once this is done, you’re in a position to implement these new strategies. But, that’s another ball game altogether.

NOTE: There’s some great work on “foreseeing the future” done by Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies which I read about. As early as the 1970’s, Pierre Wack, at Shell, studied change and built “scenarios” for understanding the future. Helping to build robust business and corporate strategies. It’s called “scenario planning” and, today, is embraced by many corporations and governments. Definitely the stuff for CEOs – and, anyone interested in taking their organisation forward.

Rationality

Think you’re smart! So what? People with high IQs are everywhere in the corporate world. And now, with everyone pushing the EQ button, thanks to Daniel Goleman and his best-selling book on Emotional Intelligence, your IQ has very little chance.

Think you’re the best performer in the company, overshooting your sales targets for the last four quarters, and expecting a promotion to come out of it this year? Kill that idea right away. Don’t expect your future to be decided on merit.

Believe what you may, brainpower and hard work are not the only ingredients needed to get ahead in the corporate world. Sure, these things help, but there’s a lot more required to make those career moves you’ve been dreaming about.

Organisations, and people who lead them, are not always rational. While you may believe that you’re part of the team because you are the right fit, or your MBA background outshines everyone else’s, it could very well be because you’re good-looking or you’re nice to people in the office that you’re considered for a promotion.

A friend of mine – and he was told this at his final interview – was once hired by a multinational firm because of his good looks. Yes, it works for the guys as well!!!

Can being nice to people help you in getting that job you’ve been waiting for? You can bet on it. I was once hired because the interview board checked for feedback from the receptionist and the managing director’s secretary (who escorted me into the interview room) and found me to be the nicest and most polite of the four candidates for the job.

In one organisation, I was promoted, even given a performance award, because I once stood up to a particularly tough Director during a business conference. Apparently, the other directors of the company took notice of this, appreciated my ‘fighting spirit’ and rewarded me in my next appraisal, in spite of a not-so-good performance level.

Sometimes, corporate rationality actually borders on prejudice. I know of a financial services firm that doesn’t hire non-vegetarians because the CEO, a pure-blooded Hindu Brahmin, forbids it. An IT company rejects applicants who are divorcees because it believes divorcees are mentally unstable. An engineering company doesn’t hire women because the CEO feels women are bad for the business: they distract men.

Strange? But true. That’s what passes for rationality in the corporate world.

Personal reputation

Build your personal reputation. A solid, no-holes reputation. At all cost.

Your personal reputation is your personal brand. Build it, single-mindedly. It helps if the main ingredients making up the brand – character, integrity, honesty – are good to start with. If you’re lacking something here, you better change your ways before people catch on. Remember the old adage, “Once a thief, always a thief”, holds good even in the corporate world.

Value-add to make your personal reputation stronger. Be nice to people. Smile. Be polite. Be grateful when someone helps you. Learn to work with people, as you can’t possibly achieve everything on your own – including building your personal reputation. Pay attention to those around you and their needs. Share their sentiments while following your goals. Particularly those of your bosses. I learnt this much too late in life and suffered for it.

Avoid pitfalls that may crash your personal reputation along the way. Be careful of what you say. Keep your opinions to yourself, especially if you have a strong point of view on anything. Never show your temper – even if you’ve had a bad day. Don’t shout in office. No matter what your point is, if you yell, you’re in the wrong.

Your personal problems are yours – don’t bring them to work. If you’re in a bad marriage, don’t discuss it with anyone in the office. Don’t bring different girlfriends (or boyfriends) to office parties. Date them in your own time. You may be the envy of a few, but you’ll be seen as unfaithful – as a “player” – unstable, and not to be trusted.

Your personal reputation doesn’t end with your next promotion or the next job, but lives with you till the end of your career. Even later. If you don’t watch what you do or what you say, others will anyway. And sometimes, they’ll be too quick to judge. Particularly, when you’re on the way to the top.

Emotional intelligence

Saddled with a low IQ since childhood? Can’t perform in this high-pressure competitive world? Stuck in a groove while the other guy gets that coveted promotion? Don’t worry. You still have a fighting chance. You just have to get emotionally smart. For that, you need emotional intelligence.

Don’t know what it is? Don’t worry. Read on.

“Emotional Intelligence – The ability to perceive and constructively act on both one's own emotions and the feelings of others.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is sometimes referred to as emotional quotient or emotional literacy. Individuals with emotional intelligence are able to relate to others with compassion and empathy, have well-developed social skills, and use this emotional awareness to direct their actions and behavior.”

This definition, and explanation, of emotional intelligence from ‘The Gale Encyclopaedia Of Psychology’ had pleased me so much that I had to quote it here. If you’ve understood the concept of EI from this quote, you needn’t read further.

Much is written on this subject, but the book to read is Daniel Goleman’s ‘Emotional Intelligence’. Goleman may have borrowed the term emotional intelligence (EI) from the work of two professors, John Mayer and Peter Salovey, but he has certainly popularised it. To CEOs and HR managers looking for something to pin their hopes on, Goleman's book is godsend.

According to EI theory, IQ is no longer enough to get ahead in life. Apart from being intelligent and being good at work, you need to be emotionally ‘developed’ to succeed. Brainpower, as measured by IQ, takes you only part of the way. To complete the journey, you need to possess ‘emotional abilities’. The only drawback is, not all of us are clued-in on these abilities and know how to use them. I guess I'm a prime example of this mess.

The interesting thing is, EI is not fixed at birth. It can be learnt (as I'm learning) and can help us become better persons. In fact, we all have emotional intelligence. Some just have a higher EI score (EQ) than others. Self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness and social skills, which EI advocates say are critical in emotional development, are an integral part of everyone’s life. What was accepted as wisdom or maturity in olden days, or as interpersonal and relationship skills a couple of years ago, is now termed emotional intelligence.

No doubt EI is important. The question is, is it so important that it overshadows IQ in determining achievements in the corporate world? Although a high EQ may improve teamwork and foster leadership qualities in a person, can it contribute directly to an individual's creativity or ability to innovate, analyse or plan? Whether EI helps us succeed at work with a better position and a higher pay, or turns us into natural leaders, is still difficult to say.

Perhaps organisations should recognise that we come in various combinations of IQ and EQ. It is as important to build an individual into a performer, as it is to nurture emotional intelligence in him or her. Both aspects are important in improving that individual’s and the organisation’s performance.

In the end, an organisation is still evaluated on performance. Perhaps, emotional intelligence can be a means to that end.