I am currently in Manila. It is good to be back here after almost four years, and meet old friends and new people. Most of the people I meet here, I met them first time for business reasons (I met others through them, so that was business too). However, now that I have no obvious business proposition to meet them, I still feel like seeing them - and they do too. I would like to believe this is a very Asian thing, but perhaps not, because the same thing happens to me in England too: I meet people without business reasons, or at least, without ones that are apparent. While this may sound incredibly pointless to some of my more business-minded associates, I have come to realise that this is my style. I don't meet people to do business, I meet people and then may end up doing business with them.
For those who may wonder why I am not very successful in my business career, this should be an easy explanation: That I don't begin with an end in mind. If I appear to lack a sense of urgency, or not focus on closure, this may be the reason. I have become all too aware of it too, after my initial attempts to get my business off the ground came to nothing. And, struggled internally, indeed: There are days when I would get up and want to be business-like (I do play such silly games with myself); and indeed, I am reminded of this umpteen times by my family, friends and colleagues, those who sincerely care about me, that if I can achieve this, I shall be very successful.
Yet, after the occasional bouts of self-awareness, I get back again to my usual ways. And, this is not about laziness - I put in more hours at work as anyone, and involved in what I do to the point of obsessiveness - but about being comfortable with myself. I have lately developed a thesis - I treat people as ends in themselves, never as a means to something else - but this thesis is only new, and as one would suspect, comes from my recent exposure to Immanuel Kant. The attitude is indeed older than the thesis, and this may have come from my growing up years, spent not in business-like environment, but with lots of relatives, cousins and people: Then, even if I wanted to be business-like, I wouldn't have know what business I would have out of them.
This confession, surely, would disqualify me from being an entrepreneur, and fail me any qualifying examination Venture Capitalists take these days of prospective investees. They want those who sold candies to their brothers or wrote up essays for their seniors to make enough money. I have always shared candies with my brothers, just like all the other mere mortals, and shared classnotes with my friends because they did the same for me. Only lately I realised that even those fairly commonplace actions are not valued in my chosen path - that of being an entrepreneur - and I am indeed wholly unsuitable. I have, therefore, rather lately started developing my thesis - people as an end - almost to counter the onslaught of a different kind of morality aimed at drowning my very average ways of doing things.
But this also gives me the realisation that I am living someone else's life. The only reason I even bothered to try to be an entrepreneur because I wanted to change the way the world around me works. I bought into the idea that it is possible. It is literature and politics that made me interested in such possibility, but given my standard middle class life, I sought to find the change through my work. Being early on the Internet, enjoying the connections and camaraderie that came with those early, imperfect, technologies, I really believed that this is a new frontier where people could matter again. I enjoyed connecting up with people who I wouldnt meet otherwise, and learning about things I wouldn't learn otherwise. I started dreaming about traveling the world because of Internet, because suddenly the far looked near. If I developed the idea that my life will be spent in an quixotic enterprise to change the world, as it looks like right now, it came from those days of green command prompts. All I was after is to expand my suburban universe of friends, conversations, ideas and passions - to include everyone! This was before people made a lot of money on the Internet and turning it into a technology thing.
But, back to the future, because those pasts dont matter because they were never really there. Just as people looking into the working of atoms to understand the wonders of the universe never realised that those paying the money wanted to unleash those terrible energies for a different purpose, to use it against humanity and nature, and those utopian ideas about Internet was just that, utopian (which, despite the techno-visionary zeal of our age, still is a hate word). I have moved on, got wiser, did and failed in dotcom, and tried and failed again. I guess the two things that happened to me in these saga of failures is that I have traveled quite a bit (if my friendships in Philippines is any evidence, I traveled on my own terms) and I have got wiser to understand that lots of what we hear isn't really true.
Like, the entrepreneurs change the world! That is a sales pitch, and as honest and material as any sales pitches. It matters, because people buy into this - but it does not change the world, because that is not the objective. Buying my groceries online and getting it delivered at home by some underpaid worker is not changing the world (as a dear friend used to say back in the 90s, when you buy potato online, that will be the day of the Internet): the world changes when everyone can have a square meal a day. Entrepreneurs don't change the world, they just change what changing the world may mean. And, people like me, too cowardly to do anything more significant, too comfortable with our middle class life, too sensitive to what other people around us will say, just console ourselves by joining this crowd, who would expropriate all the dreams of a better world just to make it worse!
One may say this is the rant of one that failed. I shall deny I even tried - and that has always been the criticism I received - but even if one comes to realise this through failure, that's good enough. In fact the problem is that people don't, they can't: The greatest thing about the traveling I am doing now is that it allows me to escape, not just my failure but also my comfort, and lodge me in distant places where, even with all my friends and contacts, I have enough discretionary time to think about what the past has come to, and what the future should be.
And, in a dark moment like this, it is very tempting to buy into the Foucauldian vision that there is no point trying: Resistance is pointless, because even if one resists this structure of power, it only legitimises the very thing it is resisting. The monster changes shape: It is not like the stupid godzila tearing through the city, but the unjust world we are trying to resist is more like the ever-changing clayface. But the point is not battling, but resisting, as Gandhi would have realised: The evil that one is fighting in these modern face-offs is not really out there - there is no villain, just injustice - but inside, because we are all participants. As he would have said, once one realises, it is resistance to getting drawn into the same vortex of injustice and oppression - memorably 'being the change that you want to see in the world' - is the way to make one free. And, that is - freeing myself - an achievable goal!
Enough banter, but that's what I wanted to do: A change in life is warranted. A fundamental change rather than a cosmetic one, like a change of job (I have just changed one). My way of resistance is to cultivate a different set of values and stop looking for jobs, stop trying to be an entrepreneur and look for the next big thing in life. To be able to change, to imagine anew, to be able to defy, to be able to create - all those used-up, perverted rhetoric, dime-a-dozen thrown to us by the publicists of the silicon valley - have a different connotation, a truer meaning, one that I was in search of. I feel ready to be bold - I feel empowered to try to find it.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.