We spend the majority of our lives from school onwards in systems that seek to judge and reward success. Naturally, we think we can spot success a mile away. So here is a question: are two people, who have reached the same position in the same organisation equally successful?
Imagine a graph with ‘Achievement’ on the Y-axis (vertical) and ‘Personal Advancement’ on the X-axis (horizontal). Lets call this the ‘Achievement Curve’. You would imagine that the graph will pretty much go as a straight line at 45 degree, from bottom left (0,0) to top right (100,100). The logic being that if you have no position at all, you cannot achieve anything, and as you gain a better and better position you achieve more and more. As Galileo said “give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the world”.
However, in reality each individual will have a different curve. The highly capable individual and the duffer will both start at at (0,0). Thereafter, which way the graph goes depends on the make-up of the individual.
The true achievers, the ‘karmayogis’ believe in doing their work to the best of their ability. They will take the curve up at a slope of more than 45 degrees (which we can call the norm). Give them the slightest opportunity and they will achieve a lot. Give them an inch, they will deliver a yard. They may or may not reach a high position (X-axis) commensurate with their achievement (Y-axis). Even so, they aim for the sky on the Y-axis. Think of Gandhi. He never aspired to any position of power, yet he led India to freedom. A true ‘karmayogi’. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Narayana Murthy, Ratan Tata, Mother Teresa - these are some of the prominent ones who achieved fame. Look around you, you will find them at all levels of prominence and obscurity. The common characteristics of such people are integrity, high energy, dedication, a sense of purpose, unwavering focus on goals, sincerity.
On the other hand you have the ‘politicians’, whose aim is to advance as fast as possible and as far as possible. They will have a much flatter curve – a big score on the X-axis, very little on the Y-axis. They will achieve little, because their focus is not achievement but advancement. The exact opposite of karmayogis. All of us know such ‘flatliners’. How far they advance will depend on how resistant the firm/society is to political jockeying, how achievement oriented and objective the assessment processes are. Their characteristics are exactly the opposite of the karmayogis': lack of integrity, lack of dedication and purpose, focus on personal gain rather than results, insincerity. No need to list examples. I am sure everyone knows plenty of these, and if you apply the test of characteristics, you will identify some more amongst people you already know!
So the success of a firm or society depends upon seeking leadership with achievement curves of the highest slope - leaders that aim high. The process of recruitment through advancement in any sphere can be seen as a process of refining the cross section of society, trying to select the best, separate the gold from the ore. As you move up the ladder the concentration of gold should increase. As in everything, nothing succeeds like success. A firm/society that has developed a culture of high achievement will pick out the best individuals and groom them for leadership. Dysfunctional or decaying firms/societies that have deteriorated into self serving oligarchies will promote entirely the wrong kind of person for all the wrong reasons – the main one being personal loyalty and sycophancy driven by the insecurity of low achievers in high positions.
I know of a large multinational company heading into ‘oligarchy’ mode that rated people on both ‘performance’ and ‘potential’. This was a well intentioned policy that sought to identify people with high potential early and put them through their paces. Unfortunately, since ‘potential’ doesn’t lend itself to measurement but is subjective, over time as an oligarchy emerged it started to get misused. A loyal, pliable and sycophantic person's performance could be very mediocre, but he could be moved along rapidly by having potential rated highly, while another more professional less sycophantic person could perform extremely well, but be damned as not having ‘potential’. The correlation between Y-axis and X-axis was severed. Performance of the firm plummeted. The share, which had been a top performing blue chip languished and even declined a little while the stock market rose 5-fold. The moral of the story is that for a culture of achievement you can have movement up the Y-axis without movement along the X-axis, but not vice versa.
A fundamental problem is that most individuals and in fact most societies do not distinguish between the two axes. They see only one axis – the X-axis. A person is seen as successful if he gets to a high position. In fact some Padma awards seem to given to people who have reached a certain position - like the Chairman of a company, pretty much purely on that basis, with no discernible contribution beyond that. Which brings us back to the question of whether two individuals' success is the same if they have got to the same position in the same organisation. The answer is - not necessarily. In fact bearing in mind that for every point on the X-axis you can have a myriad points on the Y-axis all the way from bottom to top, 0 to 100, it would have to be said that very likely the achievements of those individuals are different - could be very different!
The challenge for a firm/society/country then is to be able to judge people on their capability and achievement, not just on their personalities, communication skills, ability to project themselves, seek and dispense favours and kiss ass. Think of public office and politics. That sphere basically attracts ‘politicians’ – and here by politicians I don’t mean someone who makes a career in politics but a cynical, insincere, self seeking individual who typifies politicians. That is why most career politicians are generally held in such low esteem. The world is looking for better leadership – which is why Obama has so enraptured the world, coming across as he does as sincere, capable and well intentioned, someone keen to shoot right up the Y-axis - 'to move the world' when given a 'place to stand' a la Galileo. Whatever he did before becoming president he did well and with commitment, dedication and sincerity, whether academic achievement including editing the Harvard Law Review, his work in a law practice, or thankless community work; and he showed integrity by opposing the Iraq war at a time when anyone who did so in the US was considered unpatriotic and therefore unelectable. All this in sharp contrast to his predecessor who belly flopped along the X-axis because the X-axis is all that ever meant anything to him. He weaseled his way out of the Vietnam draft, failed at running a business, failed at running a sports team, went on to be 'elected' by a dubious decision over Gore, then got re-elected by smearing the decorated Kerry's war record!
Bringing it down to the individual level, for each of us the key to selecting or promoting someone or voting in an election is exactly the same - think of which candidate has done the most – look for the karmayogi. The person who has been an achiever in the past is the one who will most likely achieve again in the future. Its part of his or her DNA. The person with a flat curve who has come a long way and achieved nothing but looks 'promising' is probably a charlatan/’politician’ who will just keep promising. Having never performed, he probably couldn't deliver even if he wanted to (president Bush?). Look for integrity, energy, perseverance, dedication, proven capability, sincerity. Think of the values we are building through our selection. Think of the values we are passing on to the next generation(s).
And lets hope Gen-Y lives up to its name.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The art of retirement
You typically study till about the age of 21, and work till about 60. That gives you a working career of close to 40 years. Which means that the preparation time for work is about 50 percent of your working career. Ever think of that? Your retirement will last till you die - say at about 85 years. So how much preparation time do you get for the 25 years of retirement? Zero.
In some ways life is like a 400 meter race. You start with your back to the finish line, run a difficult first 100 meters (20 years) with loads of change as you grow up, go to school, go to college. You then spend the next 100 meters (20 years) galloping straight as fast as you can go, starting and building your career, starting and building your marriage, a family, your savings. You are still running in the opposite direction to the finish line and can’t see it. You then get to another difficult stretch, the third 100 meters, on a curve like the first 100, from age 40 to 60, when you have to deal with career issues (the pyramid narrows), the demands of marriage versus the increasing demands of one or both careers, adjustment to the children leaving home, and finally retirement. Which brings you to the last, or home stretch. Another straight stretch, the last stretch. You can finally see the finish line for the first time. There is nothing beyond it; it is terminal, ends in death. Within the first six months of retirement I lost two old friends both of who had retired during the year. Death is actually a key player in this last phase of life as it claims friends, family, maybe your partner, and finally, you. I am not being trying to be morbid, this is just factual. Anyway, the question is, having run this race without the end in sight, what will you be able to make of retirement, will it be reward/enjoyment or punishment/suffering. Will it be just the absence of work?
The responses I got from friends and colleagues when I announced in 2006 that I would retire in 2007 were very revealing. I was working in New York at the time. All my non-Indian friends and colleagues sent messages saying "Congratulations! Wish I could afford to retire now...you're going to have a blast! Lucky you", or words to that effect. Almost all my Indian friends and colleagues said "Retire? So what are you going to do?" And now that I am retired and in India the most common question I get asked is "Oh, you're retired. So what do you do?" If I could charge a rupee for every time I am asked that question I won’t have to worry about market crashes. As a friend of mine who retired a few months before me said to me quite crossly "Why do people keep asking what I am doing? I'm retired. Why should I have to do anything?”
The British have a lovely expression for retirement; they call it "going plural". Retirement is a time for pursuing multiple interests, now that work is behind you. Work which robbed you of the best hours of each day, the best years of your life. Because work takes such a handsome chunk of your life, it makes sense to learn to enjoy it, otherwise your working life will be a living misery, a terrible waste. The problem comes when it takes over your life, and all you learn to enjoy is work – live to work rather than work to live. You are then the Marcusian ‘One Dimensional Man’. AJ Cronin said: "Men's hands are too coarsened by hard work to able to appreciate the finer things of life." That is true of all of us to some degree. Work partly deadens our ‘hands’, unless we constantly flex them, constantly seek to keep our leisure interests alive.
"Quality is time well spent". I have loved this definition since I came across it, but never found a truly fitting application. Till now. It applies perfectly to retirement. When you are working, your time is not your own, it is always compressed, in short supply. You spend no more than 7 minutes on the morning paper, and that too while gobbling down your breakfast. You never get enough time for the family, for sports and other leisure activities. In retirement these activities expand, taking up more of your time. A certain amount of expansion is needed. You can gainfully spend an hour or even more on the papers, including online. You can sit at the dining table and have lunch - lunch is a lovely leisurely mid-day meal, not 10 minutes to shut your door, wolf down a sandwich and open the door again for more of the grind. Beyond a certain level though the expansion is Parkinsonian - activity expanding to fill the time available. I saw a great cartoon in the New Yorker, two women standing in the doorway, looking into a room at a man at a desk with an envelope in his hand; one (clearly the wife) says to the other "retirement suits him; he can make half an hour of mail last him the entire morning". I sometimes feel that fits me to a tee. I have spent the entire morning or afternoon in my study, and what did I really do? If you do not have ways of spending your time well, you will kill it. In the words of Lawrence Durrell:
"Time amputated so will bleed no more
But flow like refuse now in clocks....
Not made to spend but kill and nothing more"
I have been retired two years, and feel that these two were a lifetime. You first go through an immense feeling of euphoria - the feeling of an endless vacation. You don’t have to set an alarm, you don’t have to shave if you don’t want to, you don’t have a jackass boss who's stupidity you have to either fight or put up with, you don’t have to travel, deal with the aggravations of airports, missed connections, cancelled flights, immigration, customs, jetlag. No daily commute. It takes a while to decompress, and when that happens you realise with horror how much subterranean stress you had even though you enjoyed your work, and know you can never go back to work again. Then, when the euphoria wears off and you realise an endless vacation needs some structure, you have to start ordering your day, your week, your year.
There are three common building blocks of retirement. One, you can head back to work in some shape or form - consultancy, boards, helping a friend run his little business, a position on the building/neighbourhood association or club committee. Two, leisure time activities - golf, travel, reading, writing, photography, gardening, philanthropy, music, drinking, gastronomy, partying, movies/theatre/concerts/talks - you name it. And Three, you can earnestly set about killing time - flop around the house watching TV, surfing the internet. That is the biggest danger, the blatant unabashed murder of time, and god knows I've done plenty of it, without even realizing it. ‘Time well spent’ vs. “not made to spend but kill and nothing more”. Actually, you need to strike a balance between activity and inactivity (inactivity as contemplation or repose). In activity move from work to leisure related activities. In leisure activities balance physical and intellectual pursuits. In other words a minimum regression back to the comfort zone of One, maximum immersion in a judicious blend of activities in Two while pushing the door hard against Three which is sluicing in like a tsunami. Two has all the good and fun stuff.
Which takes us back to our 400 meter race. Your growth as an individual is highest in the first 100 meters. Though you do grow in the next 200 meters, the pace of growth is slower. Nothing quite matches what happens in childhood and adolescence. The challenge in the last 100 meters is: what is the source of growth? Will your growth slow down or stop? The surprising little secret of retirement is that the pace of growth in retirement can actually be far greater than during working years. Pent up growth, along paths you pursued but didn’t have time for, and also growth along entirely new directions. I don’t want to sound 'new agey' or preachy, nor do I claim to have mastered this at all. I am only sharing a glimmer of truth I have seen at the end of two years of getting to terms with retirement. You can open up entirely new dimensions to your life. You can evolve through phases. While we all need the comfort of some degree of routine, the extent, nature and duration of routine now is at your command. It isn’t possible to live every day as though it’s your last, no matter what those cute forwarded e mails say. That would be too exhausting. You don’t die every day. What you can try and do is avoid the “dreary desert sands of dead habits” over larger frames of time. As a young trainee in Bombay I recall sitting out one evening drinking tea and watching birds fly about joyfully in the pre-monsoon breeze, hawks catch wind currents and float. I thought to myself that being able to move freely in three dimensions must be such an exhilarating sense of freedom, if only we humans could break out of our two dimensional prison. Well, we can metaphorically in retirement.
The new dimensions can be in existing activities. I am enjoying reading of a kind I never had time for, which is nourishing a mind starved for it. The Upanishads are an excellent example of something that opened up my mind, and I realise I could never have truly appreciated them while working. The same I have found applies to music, meditation and yoga. I have started listening to music I hadn’t heard before, and getting more from Indian classical and jazz than ever before – also rock music I had missed out on. I have re-learnt yoga and can do asanas and pranayam well that I used to murder before or could never do at all – even at half my present age! I actually try and meditate (though that’s still a little dodgy). You need time and a certain sense of repose for all these - consonant with the wisdom of the Vedas, which recommend that contemplation be held for the last phase of life, our last 100 meters. I have also realised the possibility of using the sense of repose to enjoy relationships more - both new and old, based off an updated sense of who I now am (defences start to melt away) and who each friend or family member now is, clichéd though that may sound. Quite appropriately, there is much greater possibility of getting to “time well spent” in retirement than in working life, because there are greater degrees of freedom, and you don’t have to rush anything.
Finally, if you ever felt the slightest sense of a calling to spirituality, that signal could well have been overwhelmed by the tumult of a work based life. In the repose of retirement you will receive it clearly, and can follow it without obstruction. That has happened to me, and there is no greater joy, no bigger dimension that you can hope for. And that prepares you for this final phase of life, to be the kind of person who can face the future calmly, recognise that death lies ahead, and be at peace with the thought of it, not terrified or unfulfilled "seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come". I mean this in the existential and the vedantic sense of living with the knowledge of your own death, not an obsession. Face it calmly because you realize that death is actually not an end at all, any more than the end of your working life is an end. Both can lead to better things, depending on how you live your life.
The true art of retirement, I believe, lies in growth built on a foundation of enjoyment - ‘joy’ being central. Not easy, it’s a bit like saying the true goal of life is to be happy...a perfect goal but how do you get there? Truth is, you have to work at it to get somewhere. That is what I am dedicating the rest of my life to, all the way to the finish line, and maybe beyond.
In some ways life is like a 400 meter race. You start with your back to the finish line, run a difficult first 100 meters (20 years) with loads of change as you grow up, go to school, go to college. You then spend the next 100 meters (20 years) galloping straight as fast as you can go, starting and building your career, starting and building your marriage, a family, your savings. You are still running in the opposite direction to the finish line and can’t see it. You then get to another difficult stretch, the third 100 meters, on a curve like the first 100, from age 40 to 60, when you have to deal with career issues (the pyramid narrows), the demands of marriage versus the increasing demands of one or both careers, adjustment to the children leaving home, and finally retirement. Which brings you to the last, or home stretch. Another straight stretch, the last stretch. You can finally see the finish line for the first time. There is nothing beyond it; it is terminal, ends in death. Within the first six months of retirement I lost two old friends both of who had retired during the year. Death is actually a key player in this last phase of life as it claims friends, family, maybe your partner, and finally, you. I am not being trying to be morbid, this is just factual. Anyway, the question is, having run this race without the end in sight, what will you be able to make of retirement, will it be reward/enjoyment or punishment/suffering. Will it be just the absence of work?
The responses I got from friends and colleagues when I announced in 2006 that I would retire in 2007 were very revealing. I was working in New York at the time. All my non-Indian friends and colleagues sent messages saying "Congratulations! Wish I could afford to retire now...you're going to have a blast! Lucky you", or words to that effect. Almost all my Indian friends and colleagues said "Retire? So what are you going to do?" And now that I am retired and in India the most common question I get asked is "Oh, you're retired. So what do you do?" If I could charge a rupee for every time I am asked that question I won’t have to worry about market crashes. As a friend of mine who retired a few months before me said to me quite crossly "Why do people keep asking what I am doing? I'm retired. Why should I have to do anything?”
The British have a lovely expression for retirement; they call it "going plural". Retirement is a time for pursuing multiple interests, now that work is behind you. Work which robbed you of the best hours of each day, the best years of your life. Because work takes such a handsome chunk of your life, it makes sense to learn to enjoy it, otherwise your working life will be a living misery, a terrible waste. The problem comes when it takes over your life, and all you learn to enjoy is work – live to work rather than work to live. You are then the Marcusian ‘One Dimensional Man’. AJ Cronin said: "Men's hands are too coarsened by hard work to able to appreciate the finer things of life." That is true of all of us to some degree. Work partly deadens our ‘hands’, unless we constantly flex them, constantly seek to keep our leisure interests alive.
"Quality is time well spent". I have loved this definition since I came across it, but never found a truly fitting application. Till now. It applies perfectly to retirement. When you are working, your time is not your own, it is always compressed, in short supply. You spend no more than 7 minutes on the morning paper, and that too while gobbling down your breakfast. You never get enough time for the family, for sports and other leisure activities. In retirement these activities expand, taking up more of your time. A certain amount of expansion is needed. You can gainfully spend an hour or even more on the papers, including online. You can sit at the dining table and have lunch - lunch is a lovely leisurely mid-day meal, not 10 minutes to shut your door, wolf down a sandwich and open the door again for more of the grind. Beyond a certain level though the expansion is Parkinsonian - activity expanding to fill the time available. I saw a great cartoon in the New Yorker, two women standing in the doorway, looking into a room at a man at a desk with an envelope in his hand; one (clearly the wife) says to the other "retirement suits him; he can make half an hour of mail last him the entire morning". I sometimes feel that fits me to a tee. I have spent the entire morning or afternoon in my study, and what did I really do? If you do not have ways of spending your time well, you will kill it. In the words of Lawrence Durrell:
"Time amputated so will bleed no more
But flow like refuse now in clocks....
Not made to spend but kill and nothing more"
I have been retired two years, and feel that these two were a lifetime. You first go through an immense feeling of euphoria - the feeling of an endless vacation. You don’t have to set an alarm, you don’t have to shave if you don’t want to, you don’t have a jackass boss who's stupidity you have to either fight or put up with, you don’t have to travel, deal with the aggravations of airports, missed connections, cancelled flights, immigration, customs, jetlag. No daily commute. It takes a while to decompress, and when that happens you realise with horror how much subterranean stress you had even though you enjoyed your work, and know you can never go back to work again. Then, when the euphoria wears off and you realise an endless vacation needs some structure, you have to start ordering your day, your week, your year.
There are three common building blocks of retirement. One, you can head back to work in some shape or form - consultancy, boards, helping a friend run his little business, a position on the building/neighbourhood association or club committee. Two, leisure time activities - golf, travel, reading, writing, photography, gardening, philanthropy, music, drinking, gastronomy, partying, movies/theatre/concerts/talks - you name it. And Three, you can earnestly set about killing time - flop around the house watching TV, surfing the internet. That is the biggest danger, the blatant unabashed murder of time, and god knows I've done plenty of it, without even realizing it. ‘Time well spent’ vs. “not made to spend but kill and nothing more”. Actually, you need to strike a balance between activity and inactivity (inactivity as contemplation or repose). In activity move from work to leisure related activities. In leisure activities balance physical and intellectual pursuits. In other words a minimum regression back to the comfort zone of One, maximum immersion in a judicious blend of activities in Two while pushing the door hard against Three which is sluicing in like a tsunami. Two has all the good and fun stuff.
Which takes us back to our 400 meter race. Your growth as an individual is highest in the first 100 meters. Though you do grow in the next 200 meters, the pace of growth is slower. Nothing quite matches what happens in childhood and adolescence. The challenge in the last 100 meters is: what is the source of growth? Will your growth slow down or stop? The surprising little secret of retirement is that the pace of growth in retirement can actually be far greater than during working years. Pent up growth, along paths you pursued but didn’t have time for, and also growth along entirely new directions. I don’t want to sound 'new agey' or preachy, nor do I claim to have mastered this at all. I am only sharing a glimmer of truth I have seen at the end of two years of getting to terms with retirement. You can open up entirely new dimensions to your life. You can evolve through phases. While we all need the comfort of some degree of routine, the extent, nature and duration of routine now is at your command. It isn’t possible to live every day as though it’s your last, no matter what those cute forwarded e mails say. That would be too exhausting. You don’t die every day. What you can try and do is avoid the “dreary desert sands of dead habits” over larger frames of time. As a young trainee in Bombay I recall sitting out one evening drinking tea and watching birds fly about joyfully in the pre-monsoon breeze, hawks catch wind currents and float. I thought to myself that being able to move freely in three dimensions must be such an exhilarating sense of freedom, if only we humans could break out of our two dimensional prison. Well, we can metaphorically in retirement.
The new dimensions can be in existing activities. I am enjoying reading of a kind I never had time for, which is nourishing a mind starved for it. The Upanishads are an excellent example of something that opened up my mind, and I realise I could never have truly appreciated them while working. The same I have found applies to music, meditation and yoga. I have started listening to music I hadn’t heard before, and getting more from Indian classical and jazz than ever before – also rock music I had missed out on. I have re-learnt yoga and can do asanas and pranayam well that I used to murder before or could never do at all – even at half my present age! I actually try and meditate (though that’s still a little dodgy). You need time and a certain sense of repose for all these - consonant with the wisdom of the Vedas, which recommend that contemplation be held for the last phase of life, our last 100 meters. I have also realised the possibility of using the sense of repose to enjoy relationships more - both new and old, based off an updated sense of who I now am (defences start to melt away) and who each friend or family member now is, clichéd though that may sound. Quite appropriately, there is much greater possibility of getting to “time well spent” in retirement than in working life, because there are greater degrees of freedom, and you don’t have to rush anything.
Finally, if you ever felt the slightest sense of a calling to spirituality, that signal could well have been overwhelmed by the tumult of a work based life. In the repose of retirement you will receive it clearly, and can follow it without obstruction. That has happened to me, and there is no greater joy, no bigger dimension that you can hope for. And that prepares you for this final phase of life, to be the kind of person who can face the future calmly, recognise that death lies ahead, and be at peace with the thought of it, not terrified or unfulfilled "seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come". I mean this in the existential and the vedantic sense of living with the knowledge of your own death, not an obsession. Face it calmly because you realize that death is actually not an end at all, any more than the end of your working life is an end. Both can lead to better things, depending on how you live your life.
The true art of retirement, I believe, lies in growth built on a foundation of enjoyment - ‘joy’ being central. Not easy, it’s a bit like saying the true goal of life is to be happy...a perfect goal but how do you get there? Truth is, you have to work at it to get somewhere. That is what I am dedicating the rest of my life to, all the way to the finish line, and maybe beyond.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Why I was an atheist
When I was in school, I kind of believed in God, but it wasnt a belief I was attached to. It was more as though a cloak of belief had been put onto me, and I hadnt bothered to wrap it close to me or to slough it off. Then I went to college, and went through an intense adolescent phase of examining what God meant to me. I read a lot of philosophy from East and West, met many 'people of God' - amongst others, Swami's in the Ramakrishna mission; a fascinating wandering swamy (Ashish) who had graduated in electrical engineering and explained things to me with beautiful scientific analogies; and towards the end of my quest, Muktananda in Ganeshpuri. Nobody could answer my questions about God to my satisfaction, and I saw feet of clay.
The more I thought about it the more skeptical I got. How could you believe in something that could not be proved? I recognised that it was possible, perhaps even necessary to posit in theory a 'First cause uncaused, Prime mover unmoved' to explain the existence of the universe. However, such a construct was far from what I called 'man made God' , who seemed to be neurotically obsessed with what we humans do - rewarding us for being 'good' and punishing us for being 'bad' without so much as ever bothering to explain the rules. Maybe there was something behind creation, but that 'something' was infinite, and being infinite was by definition beyond the comprehension of finite minds, so why try? Also, something infinite had to be beyond the pettiness of keeping scores on each one of us, which was a key attribute of man made God.
I came to the conclusion that God was really not necessary, except as a human construct to base laws with which to civilise society (if you kill your neighbour for personal gain and nobody knows you did it - God will punish you!). I also saw the devastation being caused by differences between religions, and decided that organised religion is a terrible thing, responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity. I decided to become an agnostic. As Nabakov wrote:
"My God died young
theolatry I found
degrading, and its premises unsound
no free man needs a God.
But was I free?"
Having arrived at this decision, I felt quite liberated. Unthinking people believe in god. Uneducated people believe in God. Primitive people believed in God. I was educated, well read, modern, a free thinker. Why would a person like me with a scientific education need belief? Belief was just a crutch for the unenlightened, the feeble minded, the frightened, for those who accepted the received orthodoxy without question. I felt pretty good about my renunciation, strong and brave, hip, free thinking, part of an elite club. I was 20.
After some years of calling myself an agnostic, I began to feel a little hypocritical. An agnostic 'doubts'. Did I doubt or did I reject a personal God? I graduated to being an atheist. What a rush! I felt I had finally broken the shackles of superstition of a man-made construct which has held mankind captive since the birth of civilisation. To answer Nabakov's question, I was free! I ignored the need to answer the question of how existence came about, even though I did so as an agnostic. I just focused on the fact that the human concept of God was infirm. I felt highly evolved as an atheist, someone who didnt need to keep a lifeline open through 'doubting' rather than 'negating' the existence of God, someone who wasnt afraid to give up the insurance, the plausible deniability of saying 'oh, I just doubted, I didnt reject' in case I was wrong. I felt infinitely superior to believers, perhaps even a little contemptuous. I thought of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's 'Thus spoke Zarathustra', coming down off the mountain and being told: "God is dead" . I was 30.
However, life has a way of humbling you. By the time I turned 50, I got jolted back into a confused, uncomfortable agnosticism. I still thought atheism was cool, but couldnt in all honestly claim it any longer. Then, by the time I got to 60 belief took root. A belief spiritual not religious, which has melted away embarrassment, discomfort and doubt. How all this happened over 10 years is another story. The question is: what have I learnt from turning full circle?
I have learnt intellectual humility. I have learnt that intellectual arrogance makes you myopic, unable to see things right at the tip of your nose. I have learnt that humans, being the only form of life conscious of itself, able to think, able to create computers, the internet, artificial intelligence and space exploration, tend to believe that we have transcended nature, and are no longer part of it. I have learnt that our attitude towards the universe can be, as someone said like that of the person who finds a watch in the park and thinks it created itself.
I have learnt that the more we learn, the less we realise we know. Just 21 years ago (1988) no less a person than Stephen Hawking wrote that physics was close to answering all the questions about the world. Since then physicists have discovered that visible matter and energy are only 4% of the universe, dark matter and dark energy which we know nothing about are 96%. Who knows what else we dont know? Physicists now also believe there are many more than three dimensions (string theory says a minimum of 7 or 8 dimensions), something Einstein also believed. You can see the huge difference it makes to go from one dimension (a line) to two (a shadow) to three (the whole wide world). You can completely alter two dimensions (a shadow) by operating in a third. Can you imagine what you can do if you master a 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th dimension? Can you imagine just the change in perspective? I have learnt that there can be a difference between being scientific minded and being knowledgeable, and between being scientific minded and being open minded. I have learnt the wisdom of Socrates who said "Only one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." I have learnt that if you are open to it, belief will come to you, and when it does, the sheer logicality of it will be stunning, and you will be humbled as you realise how illogical, blind and arrogant you were.
I have also learned that belief cannot be inherited. What you can inherit is religion or superstition masquerading as belief. Real belief grows out of doubt, except for very few really evolved souls who are born with a high spiritual quotient. I am not one of them. To that extent, I am grateful for my atheism. It served a purpose. For someone like me to gain belief, you have to first disbelieve, then to suspend disbelief and have an open mind. A la Tagore:
"Be still my heart
raise not your dust
let love find its way to you."
I have also learnt that belief and lack of belief are not black and white. Both have shades of grey. Belief when it comes to you isnt full blown, it grows with time, like a sapling. And like a sapling, how well it grows depends upon you and how well you nurture it. The belief of a God-realised soul and that of a novice are very different.
Lastly, I have learned that belief opens up a whole new dimension to you, a new way of seeing, of thinking. Its like suddenly discovering that infra-red and ultra-violet truly exist and hold great fascination, whereas earlier you believed only what you could see. I can now make sense of the greatest spiritual writings in the world. The sheer sophistication and purity of thought of the Upanishads and the lofty rarefied intellectual realm in which they exist take your breath away, especially when you realise these are thoughts from a few thousand years ago. Yogananda's 'Autobiography of a yogi' offers you insights into yogic achievements and knowledge which are nothing short of revelations. The Sufi's' understanding of God and creation is similar to Vedanta, and their writings and music can be hauntingly beautiful. What Yogananda says about Christ and various Christians makes you realise that God-realised souls have existed everywhere and had similar insights. The labels of religion do not really apply to them. There is after all, only one God.
The more I thought about it the more skeptical I got. How could you believe in something that could not be proved? I recognised that it was possible, perhaps even necessary to posit in theory a 'First cause uncaused, Prime mover unmoved' to explain the existence of the universe. However, such a construct was far from what I called 'man made God' , who seemed to be neurotically obsessed with what we humans do - rewarding us for being 'good' and punishing us for being 'bad' without so much as ever bothering to explain the rules. Maybe there was something behind creation, but that 'something' was infinite, and being infinite was by definition beyond the comprehension of finite minds, so why try? Also, something infinite had to be beyond the pettiness of keeping scores on each one of us, which was a key attribute of man made God.
I came to the conclusion that God was really not necessary, except as a human construct to base laws with which to civilise society (if you kill your neighbour for personal gain and nobody knows you did it - God will punish you!). I also saw the devastation being caused by differences between religions, and decided that organised religion is a terrible thing, responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity. I decided to become an agnostic. As Nabakov wrote:
"My God died young
theolatry I found
degrading, and its premises unsound
no free man needs a God.
But was I free?"
Having arrived at this decision, I felt quite liberated. Unthinking people believe in god. Uneducated people believe in God. Primitive people believed in God. I was educated, well read, modern, a free thinker. Why would a person like me with a scientific education need belief? Belief was just a crutch for the unenlightened, the feeble minded, the frightened, for those who accepted the received orthodoxy without question. I felt pretty good about my renunciation, strong and brave, hip, free thinking, part of an elite club. I was 20.
After some years of calling myself an agnostic, I began to feel a little hypocritical. An agnostic 'doubts'. Did I doubt or did I reject a personal God? I graduated to being an atheist. What a rush! I felt I had finally broken the shackles of superstition of a man-made construct which has held mankind captive since the birth of civilisation. To answer Nabakov's question, I was free! I ignored the need to answer the question of how existence came about, even though I did so as an agnostic. I just focused on the fact that the human concept of God was infirm. I felt highly evolved as an atheist, someone who didnt need to keep a lifeline open through 'doubting' rather than 'negating' the existence of God, someone who wasnt afraid to give up the insurance, the plausible deniability of saying 'oh, I just doubted, I didnt reject' in case I was wrong. I felt infinitely superior to believers, perhaps even a little contemptuous. I thought of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's 'Thus spoke Zarathustra', coming down off the mountain and being told: "God is dead" . I was 30.
However, life has a way of humbling you. By the time I turned 50, I got jolted back into a confused, uncomfortable agnosticism. I still thought atheism was cool, but couldnt in all honestly claim it any longer. Then, by the time I got to 60 belief took root. A belief spiritual not religious, which has melted away embarrassment, discomfort and doubt. How all this happened over 10 years is another story. The question is: what have I learnt from turning full circle?
I have learnt intellectual humility. I have learnt that intellectual arrogance makes you myopic, unable to see things right at the tip of your nose. I have learnt that humans, being the only form of life conscious of itself, able to think, able to create computers, the internet, artificial intelligence and space exploration, tend to believe that we have transcended nature, and are no longer part of it. I have learnt that our attitude towards the universe can be, as someone said like that of the person who finds a watch in the park and thinks it created itself.
I have learnt that the more we learn, the less we realise we know. Just 21 years ago (1988) no less a person than Stephen Hawking wrote that physics was close to answering all the questions about the world. Since then physicists have discovered that visible matter and energy are only 4% of the universe, dark matter and dark energy which we know nothing about are 96%. Who knows what else we dont know? Physicists now also believe there are many more than three dimensions (string theory says a minimum of 7 or 8 dimensions), something Einstein also believed. You can see the huge difference it makes to go from one dimension (a line) to two (a shadow) to three (the whole wide world). You can completely alter two dimensions (a shadow) by operating in a third. Can you imagine what you can do if you master a 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th dimension? Can you imagine just the change in perspective? I have learnt that there can be a difference between being scientific minded and being knowledgeable, and between being scientific minded and being open minded. I have learnt the wisdom of Socrates who said "Only one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." I have learnt that if you are open to it, belief will come to you, and when it does, the sheer logicality of it will be stunning, and you will be humbled as you realise how illogical, blind and arrogant you were.
I have also learned that belief cannot be inherited. What you can inherit is religion or superstition masquerading as belief. Real belief grows out of doubt, except for very few really evolved souls who are born with a high spiritual quotient. I am not one of them. To that extent, I am grateful for my atheism. It served a purpose. For someone like me to gain belief, you have to first disbelieve, then to suspend disbelief and have an open mind. A la Tagore:
"Be still my heart
raise not your dust
let love find its way to you."
I have also learnt that belief and lack of belief are not black and white. Both have shades of grey. Belief when it comes to you isnt full blown, it grows with time, like a sapling. And like a sapling, how well it grows depends upon you and how well you nurture it. The belief of a God-realised soul and that of a novice are very different.
Lastly, I have learned that belief opens up a whole new dimension to you, a new way of seeing, of thinking. Its like suddenly discovering that infra-red and ultra-violet truly exist and hold great fascination, whereas earlier you believed only what you could see. I can now make sense of the greatest spiritual writings in the world. The sheer sophistication and purity of thought of the Upanishads and the lofty rarefied intellectual realm in which they exist take your breath away, especially when you realise these are thoughts from a few thousand years ago. Yogananda's 'Autobiography of a yogi' offers you insights into yogic achievements and knowledge which are nothing short of revelations. The Sufi's' understanding of God and creation is similar to Vedanta, and their writings and music can be hauntingly beautiful. What Yogananda says about Christ and various Christians makes you realise that God-realised souls have existed everywhere and had similar insights. The labels of religion do not really apply to them. There is after all, only one God.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Is crazy traffic crazy?
If you drive along a typical urban street in India, you will get the impression of total chaos. Cars zip along, while pedestrians dodge their way thru traffic, bullock carts or hand carts amble along, there is the odd truck/car broken down and being repaired....could be in any lane, and two wheelers dart in and out of the flow with suicidal verve. There is no discernible adherence to lanes or traffic rules. You could see a vehicle coming in the opposite direction down a one way street in heavy traffic to avoid taking the long way around. There may even be the occasional cow, just standing there, ruminating.
Utter disorder? Chaos? Think again. It is actually a much higher level of complexity than you would find in the West, where you have obvious order because of uni-directional flow of motorised vehicles, with pretty uniform velocity, at least in each lane. People only cross when the traffic stops. No animals. In India, on the other hand, you have multi-directional flow, with a mix of motorised and animal (including humans) drawn carts, people, animals, going in many directions. And yet it works. Create these conditions in London and the traffic would stop or you would get multiple horrific accidents. Why? Because people there are trained to handle very low levels of complexity, whereas driving in India requires the ability to deal with much greater complexity. This complexity actually represents a higher level of order - multi-dimensional compared to the near uni-dimensional conditions in the West. It is a bit like going from two dimensions to three. The greater complexity of irregular three dimensional bodies is far greater than anything you can draw in two dimensions. Add a dimension, and you go from a flat plane to the whole unfathomable universe.
The point I am making is not the superiority of Indian drivers - far from it. The point is that maybe the whole concept of entropy as disorder is wrong. Maybe entropy represents the highest form of order - multidimensional, unyielding to our models. Brownian motion (like a cloud of dust in which particles of dust are moving apparently randomly, banging into each other) isnt disorder, it is just the movement of particles which are being knocked about by each other, and the position of each particle and its velocity can be determined by its history - ideally going back all the way to the big bang. Pure determinism. And, by studying all the particles in terms of size, velocity, direction elasticity and changing environmental conditions, you could predict their future course precisely, if you could create a sufficiently powerful model.
Actually, the whole concept of entropy, as being a measure of disorder, and contributing to stability of systems is totally opposed to everything which you see around you. Evolution takes you from the simple and the undifferentiated to greater complexity. And things are getting more stable, and will continue to get more stable. The conditions in the big bang were unstable. The current functioning of the universe seems far more stable, though immeasurably more complex. Our solar system has been going for a few billion years and will continue to do so for a few billion more.
So, maybe thermodynamics has got the concept of entropy all wrong. Maybe entropy is actually a measure of unfathomable complexity, not disorder.
If greater complexity were less stable, then time should actually run in reverse from a highly evolved, highly differentiated world back to the primordial undifferentiated soup of the big bang. But wait....isnt that what will happen eventually? Wont the end of time see all stars cool to a level where they collapse in, form a black hole which sucks in their planets, so that eventually there are enough black holes that will coalesce together to form one huge, unstable black hole which will explode.....the next big bang? Maybe we are going crazily up and down from one big bang to another. Up the slow curve of increasing complexity and stability, and then down the steep curve of decreasing complexity, increasing instability, things dying out, and finally collapsing into uniformity. Then, after 'pralaya', as in the vedas, the whole cycle begins again with a bang. Om shanti shanti.
But for now, entropy will continue to represent huge complexity, not disorder. And all the madness of traffic in Delhi actually represents needless, mindless complexity, not disorder.
Utter disorder? Chaos? Think again. It is actually a much higher level of complexity than you would find in the West, where you have obvious order because of uni-directional flow of motorised vehicles, with pretty uniform velocity, at least in each lane. People only cross when the traffic stops. No animals. In India, on the other hand, you have multi-directional flow, with a mix of motorised and animal (including humans) drawn carts, people, animals, going in many directions. And yet it works. Create these conditions in London and the traffic would stop or you would get multiple horrific accidents. Why? Because people there are trained to handle very low levels of complexity, whereas driving in India requires the ability to deal with much greater complexity. This complexity actually represents a higher level of order - multi-dimensional compared to the near uni-dimensional conditions in the West. It is a bit like going from two dimensions to three. The greater complexity of irregular three dimensional bodies is far greater than anything you can draw in two dimensions. Add a dimension, and you go from a flat plane to the whole unfathomable universe.
The point I am making is not the superiority of Indian drivers - far from it. The point is that maybe the whole concept of entropy as disorder is wrong. Maybe entropy represents the highest form of order - multidimensional, unyielding to our models. Brownian motion (like a cloud of dust in which particles of dust are moving apparently randomly, banging into each other) isnt disorder, it is just the movement of particles which are being knocked about by each other, and the position of each particle and its velocity can be determined by its history - ideally going back all the way to the big bang. Pure determinism. And, by studying all the particles in terms of size, velocity, direction elasticity and changing environmental conditions, you could predict their future course precisely, if you could create a sufficiently powerful model.
Actually, the whole concept of entropy, as being a measure of disorder, and contributing to stability of systems is totally opposed to everything which you see around you. Evolution takes you from the simple and the undifferentiated to greater complexity. And things are getting more stable, and will continue to get more stable. The conditions in the big bang were unstable. The current functioning of the universe seems far more stable, though immeasurably more complex. Our solar system has been going for a few billion years and will continue to do so for a few billion more.
So, maybe thermodynamics has got the concept of entropy all wrong. Maybe entropy is actually a measure of unfathomable complexity, not disorder.
If greater complexity were less stable, then time should actually run in reverse from a highly evolved, highly differentiated world back to the primordial undifferentiated soup of the big bang. But wait....isnt that what will happen eventually? Wont the end of time see all stars cool to a level where they collapse in, form a black hole which sucks in their planets, so that eventually there are enough black holes that will coalesce together to form one huge, unstable black hole which will explode.....the next big bang? Maybe we are going crazily up and down from one big bang to another. Up the slow curve of increasing complexity and stability, and then down the steep curve of decreasing complexity, increasing instability, things dying out, and finally collapsing into uniformity. Then, after 'pralaya', as in the vedas, the whole cycle begins again with a bang. Om shanti shanti.
But for now, entropy will continue to represent huge complexity, not disorder. And all the madness of traffic in Delhi actually represents needless, mindless complexity, not disorder.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Muslim integration in India
Muslim integration in India
There are urgent reasons to look at the position of muslims in India pro-actively: 26/11 and the spate of attacks in in other cities in 2008, the growing instability in Pakistan, the mutiny in Bangladesh, and the coming national elections.
There is a raft of issues preventing muslims from being properly integrated in this country.
1. Muslims have a separate set of laws applicable to them in India, and kashmir has a separate status, something most Hindus resent. This feeds into the feeling that partition left a half-baked state of affairs. Jinnah's party claimed that partition was necessary because muslims were not safe in India, yet a lot of muslims stayed behind in India. That meant that India lost territory, but still has a sizable muslim population, almost the same as the population of Pakistan. This is viewed by many as inconsistent, even though it is no fault of the muslims who are here, most of whom were born post partition anyway. It has left a bit of a dis-equilibrium, especially with the new muslim state (now two) providing an increasingly malign presence, providing a constant reminder. This has had an impact on the politics of the country, and the unfortunate effect is of greater polarisation.
2. Where all other minority communities are better integrated, eg christians, sikhs and buddhists, muslims tend to hold themselves separate until they break into the middle class. This is no different to the behaviour of muslim communities elsewhere in the world. This has been well studied and documented. At a meeting in Vienna in 2006 European muslim religious leaders exhorted the community to better integrate and participate more fully in all aspects of European society - a positive sign. Muslims who have not integrated can be characterised by the intensity of their religious identity. They tend to be more devout, many praying several times a day.
The combined effect means that the muslim community comes across as concentrated in large groups which display religious intensity. This leads to a fair amount of suspicion (even fear) and discrimination by the other communities, even though it is not meant as intimidation but is just part of the muslims' basic identity. This diminishes the employment prospects for muslims - a vicious cycle.
3, The rate of growth of the muslim population is higher than for Hindus: decadal growth of 30% vs 20% (round numbers). This creates insecurity amongst Hindus.
4. While there has been no real indigenous Islamic militancy in India, there has been strong militant activity mainly in Kashmir and mainly from across the border which has cost more lives in India in the past few years than anywhere other than Iraq. This has now found some roots in India, with connections abroad (Pakistan, mainly) and has spread beyond Kashmir. At least part of this can be blamed on the the excesses of the military and police in the valley, and possibly also on the events in Gujarat. While the numbers of militants in India is small at present, probably no more than a few thousand out of 150 million this situation could get worse. A large, poor muslim population, discriminated against by others and at the receiving end of the antics of people like the saffron brigade makes us targets for militancy fomented from beyond our borders, even if the majority of muslims here want to live a life of peace. All you need is a sparse but committed network with a few recruits willing to kill themselves, and you get militancy of serious proportions.
In considering these issues, we need to look at the facts regarding islam in India.
1. Until the 7th century, there was no islam. This means that if you traced back the family tree of muslim families in India, many of them must have been hindus who chose to convert, while possibly some were converted forcibly during muslim rule. Either way, they share a common lineage with hindus in this country. Maybe some Hindu extremists even share blood with some muslims....
2. There are about 150 million muslims in this country. That is the third highest number of muslims in any country (after Indonesia and Pakistan) and is a number that can neither be wished away nor chased away.
3. Muslims in this country have not chosen their religion , and neither have Hindus. They were both born to it. That in a way, makes the two the same. Both feel their religion is superior, not because they have carefully chosen between available alternatives, but because of an accident of birth.
4. Every religion has its extremist fringe, a militant faction. However, Islam currently seems to have more than others. The religion allows no separation between state and church and also pretty much seeks to prescribe how you must live all aspects of life. Its hold is reinforced real time more strongly than any other by calling on its members to pray several times a day through a muezzin's call that seeks to be heard by any muslim anywhere.
There is a dream amongst extreme factions of islam in the region to create a caliphate which will rule large parts if not all of the world. These extreme sections of islam have an 'us versus them' attitude towards other religions. The koran has weighed in on both sides of this argument in three passages. One, dubbed the 'passage of the sword' is highly militant, the second 'the tribute verse' is also intolerant but suggests a more moderate view towards 'those who have been given the book', ie Jews and Christians, and the third, the 'no compulsion' verse basically is truly tolerant. Though in a small minority, enough muslims are inclined towards the intolerant and more militant attitude to be able to create problems in the world. This is compounded by the strong hold of the religion and its insistence on following a 1400 year old book to the letter. This has left islamic states and people less educated, less progressive and consequently poorer than others in the world, and therefore more easily manipulated. Some misguided muslim clerics revel in this.
Witness the story of Kasab, the terrorist caught live after 26/11. He left home because basically there wasnt enough money for all, joined his brother in a career of petty crime, joined a terrorist training camp hoping to improve his skills for crime, and was brainwashed with stories of how islam was in real danger, muslim women were being raped and killed, to the point where the recruits, young men (boys) were moved to tears and swore to protect the religion. It is doubtful he was a true blooded muslim to start with, thieving is certainly not an accepted profession for a good muslim - witness what happens to thieves in the middle east. Even so there was enough in his weak set of beliefs to push him over the top to the point that he was willing to lay down his life.
So here is the bottom line. Muslims are here, and they are as much a part of India as Hindus or anyone else. They are our muslims, not imported from some other country. And, while the large majority of Indian muslims are no problem at all, full blown islamic militancy in the region does pose a problem, and as poverty, discrimination and incidents of violence and ill treatment weigh down on the muslim community in India there is potential for more problems. Especially so with Pakistan more than willing to export and foment trouble. To deal with this issue requires a lot of maturity, with a separate strategy for external militancy such as from Lashkar e Taiba, and a different one for not creating conditions internally that drive people to extremism.
The political arena isn't helping. We have two potent forces, one seeking to maintain status quo, and the other to make it worse. I mean our two major national political parties. One, perhaps damaged by its internal lack of democracy and unsure of its electoral appeal for that very reason, is clinging to its vote bank policy of appeasement of the influential, more conservative sections of muslims. The party's commitment to improve the lot of muslims is less obvious. The other is part of a 'parivar' that seems to have a strong antipathy towards muslims, and that attitude and the actions it leads to makes things worse not better. When you push people into a corner they fight back. You cannot expect to bully 150 million people into submission - neither should you want to.
Our current bi-polar approach, 'appeasement' and 'bullying', isnt working, so what will? It doesnt take a genius to figure out that nothing will bring about change like economic progress. I have many muslim friends and acquaintances, all reasonably well off, all reasonably progressive in their attitudes. At core, all religious books tend to reflect the mores of the times in which they were written. If enough individuals change, it doesnt matter if the clergy clings to the past. The vatican doesnt support birth control, but the majority of christians, even catholics, do.
So the key issues to be addressed are integration and economic progress and one follows the other. The follow on question then is: how do you encourage economic progress amongst muslims? Lets not depend on the government. What can we do as citizens? Anyone who is in a position to hire anyone - at work, at home, ask yourself - have you ever hired a muslim? Especially in a work situation? At 13.4% of the population, that's one in 8. Look around you at your work place. Amongst domestic employees in your neighbourhood. Do you see 1 in 8? 1 in 16? 1 in 32? The answer will be sobering. So here is a suggestion. Hire one muslim. Thats all. Its not a lot, but its a start, and addresses both the key issues. Imagine if everyone who could hire people hired just one muslim, then would we not have a bit of momentum behind integration and also help the muslim community along the road to progress and prosperity? This is actually so simple, it may sound simplistic. But think about it. Integration begins in the mind. Eventually we have to get past 'us' and 'them', get past our prejudice.
The acid test will be, if 5 or 10 years down the road we are in the same situation or worse, that will be a shame, a failure. Sitting back and playing a smug blame game will not work. We need to tackle this with wisdom, maturity and responsibility as individuals, as Indians, and find solutions.
There are urgent reasons to look at the position of muslims in India pro-actively: 26/11 and the spate of attacks in in other cities in 2008, the growing instability in Pakistan, the mutiny in Bangladesh, and the coming national elections.
There is a raft of issues preventing muslims from being properly integrated in this country.
1. Muslims have a separate set of laws applicable to them in India, and kashmir has a separate status, something most Hindus resent. This feeds into the feeling that partition left a half-baked state of affairs. Jinnah's party claimed that partition was necessary because muslims were not safe in India, yet a lot of muslims stayed behind in India. That meant that India lost territory, but still has a sizable muslim population, almost the same as the population of Pakistan. This is viewed by many as inconsistent, even though it is no fault of the muslims who are here, most of whom were born post partition anyway. It has left a bit of a dis-equilibrium, especially with the new muslim state (now two) providing an increasingly malign presence, providing a constant reminder. This has had an impact on the politics of the country, and the unfortunate effect is of greater polarisation.
2. Where all other minority communities are better integrated, eg christians, sikhs and buddhists, muslims tend to hold themselves separate until they break into the middle class. This is no different to the behaviour of muslim communities elsewhere in the world. This has been well studied and documented. At a meeting in Vienna in 2006 European muslim religious leaders exhorted the community to better integrate and participate more fully in all aspects of European society - a positive sign. Muslims who have not integrated can be characterised by the intensity of their religious identity. They tend to be more devout, many praying several times a day.
The combined effect means that the muslim community comes across as concentrated in large groups which display religious intensity. This leads to a fair amount of suspicion (even fear) and discrimination by the other communities, even though it is not meant as intimidation but is just part of the muslims' basic identity. This diminishes the employment prospects for muslims - a vicious cycle.
3, The rate of growth of the muslim population is higher than for Hindus: decadal growth of 30% vs 20% (round numbers). This creates insecurity amongst Hindus.
4. While there has been no real indigenous Islamic militancy in India, there has been strong militant activity mainly in Kashmir and mainly from across the border which has cost more lives in India in the past few years than anywhere other than Iraq. This has now found some roots in India, with connections abroad (Pakistan, mainly) and has spread beyond Kashmir. At least part of this can be blamed on the the excesses of the military and police in the valley, and possibly also on the events in Gujarat. While the numbers of militants in India is small at present, probably no more than a few thousand out of 150 million this situation could get worse. A large, poor muslim population, discriminated against by others and at the receiving end of the antics of people like the saffron brigade makes us targets for militancy fomented from beyond our borders, even if the majority of muslims here want to live a life of peace. All you need is a sparse but committed network with a few recruits willing to kill themselves, and you get militancy of serious proportions.
In considering these issues, we need to look at the facts regarding islam in India.
1. Until the 7th century, there was no islam. This means that if you traced back the family tree of muslim families in India, many of them must have been hindus who chose to convert, while possibly some were converted forcibly during muslim rule. Either way, they share a common lineage with hindus in this country. Maybe some Hindu extremists even share blood with some muslims....
2. There are about 150 million muslims in this country. That is the third highest number of muslims in any country (after Indonesia and Pakistan) and is a number that can neither be wished away nor chased away.
3. Muslims in this country have not chosen their religion , and neither have Hindus. They were both born to it. That in a way, makes the two the same. Both feel their religion is superior, not because they have carefully chosen between available alternatives, but because of an accident of birth.
4. Every religion has its extremist fringe, a militant faction. However, Islam currently seems to have more than others. The religion allows no separation between state and church and also pretty much seeks to prescribe how you must live all aspects of life. Its hold is reinforced real time more strongly than any other by calling on its members to pray several times a day through a muezzin's call that seeks to be heard by any muslim anywhere.
There is a dream amongst extreme factions of islam in the region to create a caliphate which will rule large parts if not all of the world. These extreme sections of islam have an 'us versus them' attitude towards other religions. The koran has weighed in on both sides of this argument in three passages. One, dubbed the 'passage of the sword' is highly militant, the second 'the tribute verse' is also intolerant but suggests a more moderate view towards 'those who have been given the book', ie Jews and Christians, and the third, the 'no compulsion' verse basically is truly tolerant. Though in a small minority, enough muslims are inclined towards the intolerant and more militant attitude to be able to create problems in the world. This is compounded by the strong hold of the religion and its insistence on following a 1400 year old book to the letter. This has left islamic states and people less educated, less progressive and consequently poorer than others in the world, and therefore more easily manipulated. Some misguided muslim clerics revel in this.
Witness the story of Kasab, the terrorist caught live after 26/11. He left home because basically there wasnt enough money for all, joined his brother in a career of petty crime, joined a terrorist training camp hoping to improve his skills for crime, and was brainwashed with stories of how islam was in real danger, muslim women were being raped and killed, to the point where the recruits, young men (boys) were moved to tears and swore to protect the religion. It is doubtful he was a true blooded muslim to start with, thieving is certainly not an accepted profession for a good muslim - witness what happens to thieves in the middle east. Even so there was enough in his weak set of beliefs to push him over the top to the point that he was willing to lay down his life.
So here is the bottom line. Muslims are here, and they are as much a part of India as Hindus or anyone else. They are our muslims, not imported from some other country. And, while the large majority of Indian muslims are no problem at all, full blown islamic militancy in the region does pose a problem, and as poverty, discrimination and incidents of violence and ill treatment weigh down on the muslim community in India there is potential for more problems. Especially so with Pakistan more than willing to export and foment trouble. To deal with this issue requires a lot of maturity, with a separate strategy for external militancy such as from Lashkar e Taiba, and a different one for not creating conditions internally that drive people to extremism.
The political arena isn't helping. We have two potent forces, one seeking to maintain status quo, and the other to make it worse. I mean our two major national political parties. One, perhaps damaged by its internal lack of democracy and unsure of its electoral appeal for that very reason, is clinging to its vote bank policy of appeasement of the influential, more conservative sections of muslims. The party's commitment to improve the lot of muslims is less obvious. The other is part of a 'parivar' that seems to have a strong antipathy towards muslims, and that attitude and the actions it leads to makes things worse not better. When you push people into a corner they fight back. You cannot expect to bully 150 million people into submission - neither should you want to.
Our current bi-polar approach, 'appeasement' and 'bullying', isnt working, so what will? It doesnt take a genius to figure out that nothing will bring about change like economic progress. I have many muslim friends and acquaintances, all reasonably well off, all reasonably progressive in their attitudes. At core, all religious books tend to reflect the mores of the times in which they were written. If enough individuals change, it doesnt matter if the clergy clings to the past. The vatican doesnt support birth control, but the majority of christians, even catholics, do.
So the key issues to be addressed are integration and economic progress and one follows the other. The follow on question then is: how do you encourage economic progress amongst muslims? Lets not depend on the government. What can we do as citizens? Anyone who is in a position to hire anyone - at work, at home, ask yourself - have you ever hired a muslim? Especially in a work situation? At 13.4% of the population, that's one in 8. Look around you at your work place. Amongst domestic employees in your neighbourhood. Do you see 1 in 8? 1 in 16? 1 in 32? The answer will be sobering. So here is a suggestion. Hire one muslim. Thats all. Its not a lot, but its a start, and addresses both the key issues. Imagine if everyone who could hire people hired just one muslim, then would we not have a bit of momentum behind integration and also help the muslim community along the road to progress and prosperity? This is actually so simple, it may sound simplistic. But think about it. Integration begins in the mind. Eventually we have to get past 'us' and 'them', get past our prejudice.
The acid test will be, if 5 or 10 years down the road we are in the same situation or worse, that will be a shame, a failure. Sitting back and playing a smug blame game will not work. We need to tackle this with wisdom, maturity and responsibility as individuals, as Indians, and find solutions.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Has Darwin Evolved?
Has Darwin evolved?
There has been a strange, almost surreal debate about evolution vs intelligent design in recent years. That debate needs to be taken up a notch or two, to bring it into the realm of logic, and past simple minded expressions of faith. The first step is defining what intelligent design does not mean. It does not mean that the world was created 7000 years ago with Adam, Eve, a snake, an apple and wild sex in a garden.
Darwin's theory makes immense sense as far as it goes. The thing is, it doesn't go far enough. It begins with the onset of life on just one planet. Our planet. That is but one short paragraph in the evolution of the universe, and even that paragraph is not quite complete. What happened between the Big Bang and the onset of life? What is it which brought the explosively white hot point of energy into existence, what led to the unreal big bang which in 0.008th of a second filled up space close to the present size of the universe, what led the energy to congeal into particles and different forms of energy and forces, and then to atoms, molecules, matter, planets and stars, galaxies and solar systems, inorganic matter, organic matter, and finally the emergence of life which then allowed the mechanism of natural selection to set in? Darwin's theory covers an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of years of's the world existence. What determined the emergence of the universe into a shape that allowed for Darwin's theory to operate - surely there was no question of survival and natural selection in the pre-life formations described above? What drove that development?
Physicists have finally discovered the 'God' particle, which they claim determines the 'DNA' of atoms and molecules - tell which particles to become, say steel and which to become, say oxygen. Most of matter isn't understood at all. What about different forms of energy? What about gravity? There is the whole area of dark matter and dark energy which are a complete mystery and could contain the answers to how an undifferentiated beginning in the big bang became a myriad different things. Once we understand matter - still a long distance away, we then need to begin to understand what 'life' truly is, and after that we have the huge task of figuring out how 'consciousness' came about. From the big bang to consciousness - that is the true journey of evolution.
Taking a completely different tack, where did 'time' come from? That was surely present in the big bang, no evidence of evolution. And finally, there is the whole question of different dimensions beyond the three we know, to take reality as we know it all the way to infinity. "String theory' which Stephen Hawking claimed would answer all possible questions in physics in a few years (my!) believes there are at least 7 or 8 dimensions. That is mathematical modeling for you, and do remember that mathematical modeling in a different form is what gave us the sure bet of derivatives which brought the financial world to its knees. Think 'Black Scholes". But I digress.
Getting down to it, it is entirely possible that there could well be a grand design or at least set of rules which is causing the universe to unfold as it is doing. Remember, if just one element, time were to vanish, everything would coalesce into a single instant. No natural selection, no evolution. Is there chance in evolution? Probably, but how much? Tell me how do you go from immeasurably whiter than white heat to matter to life to a sperm and an egg to and the complexity of human life, its organs, functions, nervous system and brain, and on to Einstein and the theory of relativity? Is all of that truly just natural selection?
Unless we understand where all of existence came from, we cannot get at definitive answers. And who knows that? As the Nasadiya (hymn of creation) says in the Rig Veda (the Sanskrit Hindu book which is the oldest known religious/spiritual text)
" There was neither non-existence nor existence then.....
There was neither death nor immortality then.....
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning....
The life force that was covered by emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.....
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know."
"or perhaps he knows not"!
In a sense, all of evolution, from the big bang to now, has moved from a pretty undifferentiated exploding energy through a lot of complexity to life, and finally life conscious of itself and capable of having such a discussion as we are having. And from a number of accounts starting with the Rig Veda, a consciousness capable of merging with the single true underlying, unchanging reality behind all this change, the first cause uncaused, the prime mover unmoved. God?
If Charles Darwin were still alive, he would have probably added to the theory of evolution, without in any way detracting from the validity of his theory of natural selection. Evolution of life is just one part of a much grander, much bigger process, of which we have so far caught just a little glimpse. Perhaps there is no conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Perhaps evolution moves within preset boundaries, and to that extent is backed by intelligent design. It need not be either-or.
There has been a strange, almost surreal debate about evolution vs intelligent design in recent years. That debate needs to be taken up a notch or two, to bring it into the realm of logic, and past simple minded expressions of faith. The first step is defining what intelligent design does not mean. It does not mean that the world was created 7000 years ago with Adam, Eve, a snake, an apple and wild sex in a garden.
Darwin's theory makes immense sense as far as it goes. The thing is, it doesn't go far enough. It begins with the onset of life on just one planet. Our planet. That is but one short paragraph in the evolution of the universe, and even that paragraph is not quite complete. What happened between the Big Bang and the onset of life? What is it which brought the explosively white hot point of energy into existence, what led to the unreal big bang which in 0.008th of a second filled up space close to the present size of the universe, what led the energy to congeal into particles and different forms of energy and forces, and then to atoms, molecules, matter, planets and stars, galaxies and solar systems, inorganic matter, organic matter, and finally the emergence of life which then allowed the mechanism of natural selection to set in? Darwin's theory covers an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of years of's the world existence. What determined the emergence of the universe into a shape that allowed for Darwin's theory to operate - surely there was no question of survival and natural selection in the pre-life formations described above? What drove that development?
Physicists have finally discovered the 'God' particle, which they claim determines the 'DNA' of atoms and molecules - tell which particles to become, say steel and which to become, say oxygen. Most of matter isn't understood at all. What about different forms of energy? What about gravity? There is the whole area of dark matter and dark energy which are a complete mystery and could contain the answers to how an undifferentiated beginning in the big bang became a myriad different things. Once we understand matter - still a long distance away, we then need to begin to understand what 'life' truly is, and after that we have the huge task of figuring out how 'consciousness' came about. From the big bang to consciousness - that is the true journey of evolution.
Taking a completely different tack, where did 'time' come from? That was surely present in the big bang, no evidence of evolution. And finally, there is the whole question of different dimensions beyond the three we know, to take reality as we know it all the way to infinity. "String theory' which Stephen Hawking claimed would answer all possible questions in physics in a few years (my!) believes there are at least 7 or 8 dimensions. That is mathematical modeling for you, and do remember that mathematical modeling in a different form is what gave us the sure bet of derivatives which brought the financial world to its knees. Think 'Black Scholes". But I digress.
Getting down to it, it is entirely possible that there could well be a grand design or at least set of rules which is causing the universe to unfold as it is doing. Remember, if just one element, time were to vanish, everything would coalesce into a single instant. No natural selection, no evolution. Is there chance in evolution? Probably, but how much? Tell me how do you go from immeasurably whiter than white heat to matter to life to a sperm and an egg to and the complexity of human life, its organs, functions, nervous system and brain, and on to Einstein and the theory of relativity? Is all of that truly just natural selection?
Unless we understand where all of existence came from, we cannot get at definitive answers. And who knows that? As the Nasadiya (hymn of creation) says in the Rig Veda (the Sanskrit Hindu book which is the oldest known religious/spiritual text)
" There was neither non-existence nor existence then.....
There was neither death nor immortality then.....
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning....
The life force that was covered by emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.....
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know."
"or perhaps he knows not"!
In a sense, all of evolution, from the big bang to now, has moved from a pretty undifferentiated exploding energy through a lot of complexity to life, and finally life conscious of itself and capable of having such a discussion as we are having. And from a number of accounts starting with the Rig Veda, a consciousness capable of merging with the single true underlying, unchanging reality behind all this change, the first cause uncaused, the prime mover unmoved. God?
If Charles Darwin were still alive, he would have probably added to the theory of evolution, without in any way detracting from the validity of his theory of natural selection. Evolution of life is just one part of a much grander, much bigger process, of which we have so far caught just a little glimpse. Perhaps there is no conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Perhaps evolution moves within preset boundaries, and to that extent is backed by intelligent design. It need not be either-or.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Padma Silly
When recipients of state awards like Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan go up to receive their awards, they are greeted with a 'namaskar'. Rumour has it that a departure was made for Bhajji, who was greeted with a 'teri maan ki'.
It is with a sense of dismay bordering on disgust that I have been looking at the award lists over the years. What do you make of a Padma Shri to a movie star? What exactly is the contribution, especially from actors who's main qualification is good looks, being the winner of a beauty contest, not exceptional talent, professional training and outstanding performances on stage and on screen of say a Naseeruddin Shah? And what about awards given to people who's only apparent 'contribution' is to do their job - head a company, or a government department like the atomic commission? Awards have even been given to people who's only connection to the country is that they were born here, left the country, took foreign citizenship, earned lots of money abroad, and did absolutely nothing in or for India. Isn't it cringe inducing to chase after people to give them awards when they have chosen to have nothing to do with you?
This year there has been some criticism over the selections. The kashmiri shawl trader who got an award. The olympic medalists who didn't. The first shows how little care goes into the selection process. The second shows how apparent lack of consistency leads to a sense of entitlement. The question about the olympians is, if we start to win olympic medals by the score as China has started to and in keeping with the size of our population, will we give scores of Padma Shri's every year? What about all the hockey golds in the past? And talking of consistency, look at Larsen and Toubro. It was set up by Holk Larsen as a world class fabrication and equipment manufacturing company at the height of the licence raj. A huge achievement and a very significant contribution to development. Yet, he didn't get an award till 2001, when he was given a Padma Bhushan. The current head of L&T just got a Padma Vibhushan. Consistent?
Truth is, the whole premise of state given awards is highly questionable. Maybe they should be abolished. And yet, there is no point in saying that, because it will never happen. The cat is out of the bag, the train has left the station, the horse has left the barn....choose your analogy. Those who give the awards have a vested interest in giving them, not just seeking one for themselves, but in terms of power, influence and patronage. They are not going to give that up. Abolition is unrealistic. What is worth asking for is two things.
One, that there be just one clear guiding principle: exceptional achievement. And exceptional achievement doesn't mean the position you have achieved, but what you have done with it. Being 'somebody' is NOT an achievement, 'doing' something exceptional is. In fact a person who doesn't have a high position and yet achieves a lot is far more deserving of an award. A Mahatma Gandhi rather than some other Gandhi. A Sunderlal Bahuguna rather than some other Bahuguna. And nobody at all should get an award for just doing their job, no matter how lofty the position. Or for popularity.
Second, that there be a committee of eminent people, citizens who are of proven calibre and integrity, not bureaucrats. Like Ratan Tata. Amartya Sen. Narayana Murthy. Dr Abdul Kalam. Who will be able to resist pressures from people in power. Who will try and define criteria for measuring achievement, so as to get objectivity. Who will look at the whole process of nomination, to ensure that worthy candidates are not left off the list. And who will not give out awards unless someone truly deserves it. This should not be an allocation game. A national award should truly mean something. Like the Nobel prize. There are some years no Nobel is given in a category, because nobody deserved it.
The basic question is, are the awards about excellence, or about patronage?
It is with a sense of dismay bordering on disgust that I have been looking at the award lists over the years. What do you make of a Padma Shri to a movie star? What exactly is the contribution, especially from actors who's main qualification is good looks, being the winner of a beauty contest, not exceptional talent, professional training and outstanding performances on stage and on screen of say a Naseeruddin Shah? And what about awards given to people who's only apparent 'contribution' is to do their job - head a company, or a government department like the atomic commission? Awards have even been given to people who's only connection to the country is that they were born here, left the country, took foreign citizenship, earned lots of money abroad, and did absolutely nothing in or for India. Isn't it cringe inducing to chase after people to give them awards when they have chosen to have nothing to do with you?
This year there has been some criticism over the selections. The kashmiri shawl trader who got an award. The olympic medalists who didn't. The first shows how little care goes into the selection process. The second shows how apparent lack of consistency leads to a sense of entitlement. The question about the olympians is, if we start to win olympic medals by the score as China has started to and in keeping with the size of our population, will we give scores of Padma Shri's every year? What about all the hockey golds in the past? And talking of consistency, look at Larsen and Toubro. It was set up by Holk Larsen as a world class fabrication and equipment manufacturing company at the height of the licence raj. A huge achievement and a very significant contribution to development. Yet, he didn't get an award till 2001, when he was given a Padma Bhushan. The current head of L&T just got a Padma Vibhushan. Consistent?
Truth is, the whole premise of state given awards is highly questionable. Maybe they should be abolished. And yet, there is no point in saying that, because it will never happen. The cat is out of the bag, the train has left the station, the horse has left the barn....choose your analogy. Those who give the awards have a vested interest in giving them, not just seeking one for themselves, but in terms of power, influence and patronage. They are not going to give that up. Abolition is unrealistic. What is worth asking for is two things.
One, that there be just one clear guiding principle: exceptional achievement. And exceptional achievement doesn't mean the position you have achieved, but what you have done with it. Being 'somebody' is NOT an achievement, 'doing' something exceptional is. In fact a person who doesn't have a high position and yet achieves a lot is far more deserving of an award. A Mahatma Gandhi rather than some other Gandhi. A Sunderlal Bahuguna rather than some other Bahuguna. And nobody at all should get an award for just doing their job, no matter how lofty the position. Or for popularity.
Second, that there be a committee of eminent people, citizens who are of proven calibre and integrity, not bureaucrats. Like Ratan Tata. Amartya Sen. Narayana Murthy. Dr Abdul Kalam. Who will be able to resist pressures from people in power. Who will try and define criteria for measuring achievement, so as to get objectivity. Who will look at the whole process of nomination, to ensure that worthy candidates are not left off the list. And who will not give out awards unless someone truly deserves it. This should not be an allocation game. A national award should truly mean something. Like the Nobel prize. There are some years no Nobel is given in a category, because nobody deserved it.
The basic question is, are the awards about excellence, or about patronage?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Satyam, Scamalinga, and the role of boards
In the aftermath of the Satyam scam, one area that is clear as mud from media outpourings is the role of the board. Not what it was (nobody knows that) but what it should have been.
1. I find it hard to believe that so many people were shocked and surprised by what happened at Satyam. I am also amazed that Mr Scamalinga got any awards. Everybody in the stock market knew that Satyam was not exactly a model of governance, unlike Infosys and Wipro . That is why its P/E traded at a discount to Wipro and Infosys. Scamalinga bought an internet company in the late 90s which created a hubub as it was a questionable buy, and he paid far too much for it. The market punished the Satyam stock then.
2. So what has this got to do with the board? Everything. Anyone who is joining a board is of a certain seniority, which means contacts and the ready ability to check out the reputation of a company or individual. How/why did these stalwarts who joined Scamalinga's board not know what kind of guy he was? It was common knowledge that the company dressed its numbers - though nobody knew the extent. Nobody respectable should join a board like that. One check most investors do is to scan the list of board members to get comfort that the board has people of stature. If a company cannot get good directors, that is a clear red flag that something is wrong. By joining the Satyam board, the board members endorsed the company. The question is why.
As for the organisations that gave him awards, the less said the better. I am of the view that people are more concerned with the position you have attained than the results you have produced, and are more concerned with the results than the means. Member of the Board, wow! Never mind that you slept through every meeting, or endorsed dodgy decisions.
3. What are the responsibilities of the board? It is necessary to distinguish between three external influences on a company - the external directors, the external auditors and the regulators. The prime responsibility of preventing scams is that of the regulators, and the prime responsibility of detecting a scam lies with the auditors. Those are not the remit of the Board. The external board has to operate off numbers provided by the company and verified by the external auditors. There is no way for independent board members to know what is 'real'. I have operated as an executive director and as an external director, and can state categorically that if you are not part of the day to day management of the company, there is no way to know what the costs and margins really are at any point of time. The Board is responsible for the key task of hiring and firing the CEO and for providing direction, especially in key decisions (eg acquisitions, like Maytas) - both moot points in a family run company. If a board member feels he cannot influence these two things, he is merely a rubber stamp, and shouldnt be there.
4. So if the prevention and detection of scams is not the preserve of the board, does this mean the board is off the hook? No. The board does have an audit committee. This committee should look into the appointment of the external auditors and how much they are paid (did the external director(s) on the audit question why PWC was paid way over the norm by Satyam?). The auditors are supposed to be appointed by the shareholders, not the management. The audit committee has a role to play there. Moreover, the audit committee must have an idea of how the audit is being performed and be satisfied that due process is being followed, and must meet the auditors independent of the management of the company, to allow them an opportunity to state whether the management is applying undue pressure on the auditors.
And what happens to the board in a situation like Satyam's? Whether or not there is a legal liability, there is a downside. In the case of Satyam, the principal of ISB lost his job. The other people are certainly going to suffer a loss of reputation at the very least. Would you want one of them on your board? No. Even if you were looking for someone pliable, the answer would have to be no. They are done. They will also likely get hauled over the coals in the investigation.
5. The last point is governance. Some companies have a governance committee, which most often focuses mainly on key appointments . That is probably not enough. In the post Enron and now post Satyam era, investors are going to be keen to get reassurance on this key area. Those companies that can demonstrate good practices will increasingly be rewarded by the market. There is going to be a clear opportunity here for a financial win for shareholders. Clearly an area for Boards to reflect on strategically in the context of shareholder value creation, quite apart from any fiduciary responsibility.
1. I find it hard to believe that so many people were shocked and surprised by what happened at Satyam. I am also amazed that Mr Scamalinga got any awards. Everybody in the stock market knew that Satyam was not exactly a model of governance, unlike Infosys and Wipro . That is why its P/E traded at a discount to Wipro and Infosys. Scamalinga bought an internet company in the late 90s which created a hubub as it was a questionable buy, and he paid far too much for it. The market punished the Satyam stock then.
2. So what has this got to do with the board? Everything. Anyone who is joining a board is of a certain seniority, which means contacts and the ready ability to check out the reputation of a company or individual. How/why did these stalwarts who joined Scamalinga's board not know what kind of guy he was? It was common knowledge that the company dressed its numbers - though nobody knew the extent. Nobody respectable should join a board like that. One check most investors do is to scan the list of board members to get comfort that the board has people of stature. If a company cannot get good directors, that is a clear red flag that something is wrong. By joining the Satyam board, the board members endorsed the company. The question is why.
As for the organisations that gave him awards, the less said the better. I am of the view that people are more concerned with the position you have attained than the results you have produced, and are more concerned with the results than the means. Member of the Board, wow! Never mind that you slept through every meeting, or endorsed dodgy decisions.
3. What are the responsibilities of the board? It is necessary to distinguish between three external influences on a company - the external directors, the external auditors and the regulators. The prime responsibility of preventing scams is that of the regulators, and the prime responsibility of detecting a scam lies with the auditors. Those are not the remit of the Board. The external board has to operate off numbers provided by the company and verified by the external auditors. There is no way for independent board members to know what is 'real'. I have operated as an executive director and as an external director, and can state categorically that if you are not part of the day to day management of the company, there is no way to know what the costs and margins really are at any point of time. The Board is responsible for the key task of hiring and firing the CEO and for providing direction, especially in key decisions (eg acquisitions, like Maytas) - both moot points in a family run company. If a board member feels he cannot influence these two things, he is merely a rubber stamp, and shouldnt be there.
4. So if the prevention and detection of scams is not the preserve of the board, does this mean the board is off the hook? No. The board does have an audit committee. This committee should look into the appointment of the external auditors and how much they are paid (did the external director(s) on the audit question why PWC was paid way over the norm by Satyam?). The auditors are supposed to be appointed by the shareholders, not the management. The audit committee has a role to play there. Moreover, the audit committee must have an idea of how the audit is being performed and be satisfied that due process is being followed, and must meet the auditors independent of the management of the company, to allow them an opportunity to state whether the management is applying undue pressure on the auditors.
And what happens to the board in a situation like Satyam's? Whether or not there is a legal liability, there is a downside. In the case of Satyam, the principal of ISB lost his job. The other people are certainly going to suffer a loss of reputation at the very least. Would you want one of them on your board? No. Even if you were looking for someone pliable, the answer would have to be no. They are done. They will also likely get hauled over the coals in the investigation.
5. The last point is governance. Some companies have a governance committee, which most often focuses mainly on key appointments . That is probably not enough. In the post Enron and now post Satyam era, investors are going to be keen to get reassurance on this key area. Those companies that can demonstrate good practices will increasingly be rewarded by the market. There is going to be a clear opportunity here for a financial win for shareholders. Clearly an area for Boards to reflect on strategically in the context of shareholder value creation, quite apart from any fiduciary responsibility.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ultra Right Faultline
You have to ask yourself: how could the automakers go so horribly wrong?
A little story may help answer that. One day some years ago I noticed a colleague drove into the parking lot in a new SUV. I asked him how come. He said "Al Gore made this movie about global warming. I couldn't let him get away with it. I had to do something."
Thats what I call the Ultra Right Republican faultline. This need to oppose anything 'progressive' as being 'liberal'. Lets not even go into when liberal became a bad word in the US. In the rest of the world, and throughout history, liberal generally meant good. When liberal denotes bad, you know where things are headed. Backwards. Ultraconservative. I had a boss (also republican) who told me change was bad (in the context of manufacturing). Change caused problems. Just stick to the status quo, dont question it or seek to improve it. In effect, worship the holy cow . I pointed out (politely) that all progress involves change, so if change was bad progress was bad. He looked at me like I was a martian.
I guess Detroit was dominated by the ultra right, who figured that large tasteless cars were part of the American way of life, and that a majority of Americans would stay with them. Small, fuel efficient Japanese cars were unamerican, liberal, democrat. A flimsy passing fad, that would yield to the real thing. Which is probably why they came to Congress for a bailout without a plan. They didnt really see the need for change. They only saw the need for cash to run the business, which would doubtless improve once the economy got better and the frivolous liberal fads passed on.
Of course I exaggerate. A little. But only to prove a point.
A little story may help answer that. One day some years ago I noticed a colleague drove into the parking lot in a new SUV. I asked him how come. He said "Al Gore made this movie about global warming. I couldn't let him get away with it. I had to do something."
Thats what I call the Ultra Right Republican faultline. This need to oppose anything 'progressive' as being 'liberal'. Lets not even go into when liberal became a bad word in the US. In the rest of the world, and throughout history, liberal generally meant good. When liberal denotes bad, you know where things are headed. Backwards. Ultraconservative. I had a boss (also republican) who told me change was bad (in the context of manufacturing). Change caused problems. Just stick to the status quo, dont question it or seek to improve it. In effect, worship the holy cow . I pointed out (politely) that all progress involves change, so if change was bad progress was bad. He looked at me like I was a martian.
I guess Detroit was dominated by the ultra right, who figured that large tasteless cars were part of the American way of life, and that a majority of Americans would stay with them. Small, fuel efficient Japanese cars were unamerican, liberal, democrat. A flimsy passing fad, that would yield to the real thing. Which is probably why they came to Congress for a bailout without a plan. They didnt really see the need for change. They only saw the need for cash to run the business, which would doubtless improve once the economy got better and the frivolous liberal fads passed on.
Of course I exaggerate. A little. But only to prove a point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
