What does India mean?

Did India exist before August 15, 1947?

There can be many answers.

Yes, we are a very old nation. We have been here since time immemorial. The British period was only an eclipse. Before them, we were known as a golden bird. We have always been a very solid, vibrant nation. We have been very advanced culturally.

No, in the present form, we did not exist before 1947. We were divided in many riyasats and each one was an independent political entity. In fact, British united us, they exploited us too, but then left us as one nation.

Oh, yes! We are the oldest nation on this earth. See the Vedas for example. The oldest books on this earth are testimony to our great cultural heritage.

But it would mean that we were a Hindu state primarily and many attacks, first by Mughals and then by Europeans made us a heterogeneous society.

No, of course not. We have always been a pluralistic society. Our Indian culture has been very dynamic and it has absorbed many other races that came here. Our history is a record of mixture of races and religions.

Okay! Let us try to analyse from a different perspective. What do we mean by India. Do we mean a socialist, sovereign, secular republic? Then definitely, it did not exist before August 15, 1947. But in some other form, we have surely been there. Otherwise, what is the rationale of cultural renaissance or the great Indian freedom struggle?

The entire debate comes to a central issue. What do we mean by India? What does being an Indian mean? If one says that India has existed for ages, what features of India have existed?

Very interesting and very open. I cannot define it. But India is something. And it is much beyond geographical and political definitions. As someone very rightly said, "You can take someone out of India, but you can never take India out of a person."

What is the option?

Which is a better way to study - a wide extensive approach or a narrow intensive one?

We all come across some common decision making situations. At one time or another, we have to face them and try to make valid options. I call them questions of individual preferences. The above mentioned choice is a perfect example of the same.

This question can obviously have three possible answers.

First, Wide extensive approach is better as it suits more to the ever changing world scenario. One never knows what will be asked in the examination and so some idea of every possible aspect of the subject becomes necessary. Similarly one can always expect life to present unforeseen challenges now and again. An all rounder personality is more likely to emerge successful out of it.

Second, Narrow intensive approach is better. An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less. In today's market scenario every product or service category is being divided into newer and more specific categories. Hence, it is not only the better choice but also the only option available to gain maximum possible expertise in the identified area.

Third, Both are equally good. Which one to apply? This decision depends on availability of time and resources and the output required.

A more serious thinking gives us two very interesting cases.

Let us take the academic scene first. This is a very good example of continuous movement from wide extensive studies to narrow intensive studies. In initial classes, one studies Science as one subject. Then on High School level science divides itself into three subjects: Physics, Chemistry and Biology. When we further move to college level, Chemistry divides itself again into three area : Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry. This process keeps on becoming more and more intensive and focused up to research level. Another similar example can be given of management courses. In all MBA and equivalent courses, the first year is normally devoted to teach 'Something about everything' while the teachings of the second specialisation year can be described as 'Everything about something'. And the final project semester covers a super specialisation. The same direction of becoming more and more focused and intensive continues here.

The corporate career scene is exactly reverse. One begins his or her career with a very specific assignment. This is mostly repetitive in nature. But as the new entrant becomes senior and gets one or two promotions, his job gets enlarged and he gets a higher position now encompassing more responsibilities. The men on the top mostly get a helicopter view of things. (what a good way to express wide extensive approach!)

So can one conclude that student life progresses from wide extensive study to narrow intensive one and the corporate career follows the reverse process?

There is one more aspect to be considered. What about wide intensive approach? Can somebody claim to know everything about everything? Seems very difficult but haven't online tools made this idea possible. With Google taking care of trivia, is it too much to ask for? Can't we expect our best people to have understanding of all subjects?

I would prefer to leave this topic here. I know that i am unable to end this thought process. Readers are requested to try and get some conclusion.

Discovery of India

"Our nation is known for unity in diversity. We have many states but one nation. We have many languages but just one central ideology. We have many religions but just one composite culture. We have many castes but one core philosophy of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam."

Last week i was invited to preside over the annual function and prize distribution ceremony of a Higher Secondary School. A 15 year old girl, student of class 11, delivered the welcome speech and there she uttered the words quoted above in a very confident and energetic voice.

This speech helped me to go into a very different thought process. Although i totally agree with her strong belief in the unity of India, yet some disturbing trends are very clearly visible to every observing mind. I was able to recall that on the preceding day, someone had opined in a group discussion that India is more likely to continue to have coalition governments as it is itself a coalition of various cultures and ethnic groups.

If we continue to connect the dots, the rationale behind demands for separate states can also be found out in the fact that many groups do not associate themselves emotionally with the state they live in. Either cultural or linguistic identity is so different that they prefer to have a different state of their own.

Are we a unitary entity? Are we a federation of states? Our constitution concludes that we are a federal state having striking unitary features. But this issue cannot be so easily resolved. There are many issues that need to be addressed. Let us consider some of them:

1. We have many languages. We also have many linguistic families. The southern languages, the central Indian languages, the north eastern ones etc. have totally different linguistic histories. But we also find that lately English is growing very fast and encompassing the whole India. It has nearly become the second language of every Indian.

2. We have many religions. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism were born here only. Zoroastrianism and Bahaism today are found in India only i.e. India is their only home today. Apart from these, we also find many Christians and Muslims here. Many sects of these religions are found in India only. For example, Bersheba Christians treat India as their only home. Daudi Bohras today are found in India only. Their Dharmguru also resides here only. But we also find that new age modern cosmopolitan spirituality is spreading very fast and encapsulating everyone.

Can the same logic be applied to economy as well? Are we one unitary economy or a constellation of many economies? Is it fair to compare our economy with some other economy like Singapore? Can Gujarat and West Bengal be parts of the same economy? When The Economist comments about Indian Economy, is it possible to apply the same yardstick to Tamilnadu and Arunachal Pradesh?

I would say that we are a group of many interdependent economies. I see every city or even town to have some very distinct features and economic activities typical to that geographical or civil unit only.

And this gives rise to the possibility of a lot of entrepreneurial ventures. We will continue to have a number of national brands and a much higher number of local brands as well. I also foresee every tier 2 and tier 3 city having their own TV channel and their own beauty pageants!

India can only be discovered in bits and pieces! And every bit of it is unique in its own sense. Every such unit has the potential to grow into a full fledged economy. We shall always remain one strong nation but economically the world must be ready to compete with hundreds of vibrant Indian economies.

This is really going to be very interesting!

An open mind!

"Winners don't do different things, they do things differently." A great idea! Isn't it?

"There is never a right time or a right way to do a wrong thing." Another great idea! I am sure many of our readers would agree.

This morning, i was taking a class of about 40 students. The session was intended to develop the quality of delivery and content in a group discussion. We agreed to do an exercise. Everybody would tell the class a good quotation and the class would assess its effectiveness on the parameter of using it in a live group discussion. In that session, one student uttered the first quotation mentioned herein above. Nearly everybody agreed with this. Many of them were able to recall that famous motivation guru Shiv Khera often uses this in his speech and writings. There was not a single one in the class to oppose this thought. After 3 or 4 more contributions, someone presented the second idea written above. And she got a lot of accolades for speaking something wise and true. And then someone pointed out that both these thoughts appear to be contradictory. Both of them may not be correct together.

Although a very deep analysis may be able to find out an area that may accommodate both these wise sayings, yet the fact remains that one of these presents a counterpoint to the other.

It was a very interesting finding of the class that listeners are very often awed by some big names and tend to accept their thoughts without applying their own analysis. Any quotation attributed to Emerson, G.B.Shaw or Oscar Wilde, for example, is more likely to be accepted without any opposition. In contemporary India, similar respect (though illogical) is commonly offered to sentences attributed to Dr Kalam or Mahatma Gandhi.

What to call this? Is it intellectual terrorism supported by celebrity endorsement? Can it be compared with promotion of various products by celebrities?

Some further study revealed that any such thought when presented incognito i.e. without using the name of any thinker, is more likely to be discussed with an open mind. Is it branding? Is it accepting the intellectual supremacy of some names and considering them above evaluation?

Let us hope that the scientific attitude of testing and then accepting something expands to include such food for thought also in its ambit.

A case for productivity!

What is the one thing you like most to do when you get up in the morning?

When i asked this question to a batch of 20 young and energetic students of undergraduate courses, i did not have the slightest of idea as to what is in store for me.

The initial answers were politically correct and less frank.

"I pray to God for this beautiful day."
"I take blessings of my elders and parents."
"I make a to-do-list for the day."
"I meditate."
"I exercise."
"I revise my lessons of the previous day."
"I devote my time to the pre-class assignments for the day."

Then came some frank and off the cuff replies.

"I go to washroom."
"I check my mobile for any messages or missed calls."
"I switch on some music."
"I just pick up daily newspaper."
"I pick up the book that was left incomplete the previous night."

Then it was time for some mischievous ones.

"I give a missed call to my best friend."
"I look at the watch and go back to sleep."

And then came the answer that has prompted me to write this blog post.

"I get up and keep sitting for some time without doing anything. I just sit there for half an hour."

This answer in itself was not very shocking but the reaction was. More than half of others began to second this answer and wanted to replace their initial replies with this one. And this prompted me to probe a little further. I asked them to give five minutes and analyse themselves as to how much time of the day they spend doing 'nothing'. Some questions came up for clarification and we set up some ground rules. One rule said that watching a particular programme on TV was NOT doing nothing but sitting there and changing channels purposelessly will be doing nothing. Another said that lying in bed trying to sleep is NOT doing nothing but lying just to kill time will be doing nothing. Some more such rules were laid down to include all the periods of inactivity.

After some time, final answers started coming in. They were in the range of 2 hours to 8 hours. This exercise was certainly going to produce something. The overall average of 21 persons (including myself) came to 4 hours 57 minutes 9 seconds. This much time we tend to spend without doing anything in particular!

A lot of discussion followed. To sum up, we could not reach any conclusion about this time being a waste or not. Some of us present there very strongly believed that this time was important to retain our focus and concentration at other times. And we also found out that there was no proof of any noticeable variation in the general efficiency levels of people belonging to the two extremes (inactive for 2 hours or for 8 hours).

Of course, it is very important to optimise the available resources. The final outcome is always a function of availability of resources and the optimum utilisation thereof. And i remember having read somewhere, 'The best gifts in the world are free!" This might be the reason of a very common observation that natural gifts are mostly subjected to sub-optimal utilisation. Productivity is one such principle that must be applied to every situation we are in. This can very easily be a universal principle to measure efficiency and predict effectiveness!

Coming back to the thought experiment conducted in the class, the sample size was too small to propound any final trend. I request the readers to introspect and provide us their valuable inputs by way of comments. I sincerely hope that we might discover something that might throw some light on this angle of human behaviour!(Notwithstanding the fact that productivity is a guiding principle in all situations)