I usually measure my life not in terms of what I have, but what I have learned. This approach works for me, particularly as I have very little except a pile of books, but there is one problem with this approach: It does not necessarily tell me whether I am moving forward.
Learning more should be good, but then one can argue that one can not live without learning, and therefore, learning, by itself, is not a benchmark of progress. Put another way, the question to ask is not whether I have learnt new things, but whether I learnt enough. This is indeed a more difficult question to answer.
Take, for example, the year of 2016. Even when I struggled in the past, I would usually feel good about doing better year-on-year. But, in comparison, I am approaching the end of 2016 rather bleakly. The year itself has been one of waiting. Last Christmas, I was hoping for some dramatic change, which failed to materialise. And even while I gave up on the plans I made, I was not able to develop something else immediately, and instead, meandered around in my comfort zone and in conversations which gave me hope but not much else. So, expectedly, at the end of the year, I am at the throes of this mini despair!
So, I did what I preach not to do. I indulged in comfort zone thinking, I failed to take the leap and to act and to change my life when it needed to. And, indeed, I did the other things that I should not have, like blaming my earlier failed experimentation for my risk aversion and the steady stream of bad geopolitical news for me being on the defensive. What I did not do, and the point I want to make here, is to step back and reflect, and come up with a better plan for 2017.
Despite my despairing mood, however, it would be wrong to write off 2016. On a better day, I would have labelled this an year of experimentation, a time of germinating ideas and reimagining who I am. And, to be sure, I have had quite a few discoveries along the way, and started a few things that may, in time, change my life.
Take, for example, this whole belated realisation that while I live a creative life in general, life of an entrepreneur is not for me. This should have been obvious to other, smarter, souls a long time ago, but it became belatedly to me. I was perhaps blinded by the rhetoric of entrepreneurial life, that of ideas, of world-changing ambitions, but missed one essential ingredient that makes an entrepreneur - the love of money! In fact, entrepreneurship is first and foremost about love of money than about ideas and ambitions to change the world. Coming from where I came from, the new Asia, the two somewhat looked the same, but they are not. If there is a way to make money without changing the world, and even worsening it perhaps, the entrepreneur would, and should, do it; and, indeed, there are other ways of living a life of ideas, and changing the world, without being an entrepreneur.
I did have a single deja vu moment in 2016, quite recently, when all this became clear. This was about an attractive offer, which I wrote earlier about (cryptically, as I would usually do in this blog), to run something which was traditional. It was, in fact, an easy play, and that excited the investors. While I was looking at the same asset, I was looking at a different thing - to leverage the asset to build a potentially new kind of education - and they were quick to point to the flaws of my ways. There was a clear and present opportunity, unexciting except the prospect of making money, that I was missing. I was indeed unexcited - did I want to go back to marketing a feel-good education - despite the money on the table. And, this, failure to be opportunistic, failing to be excited by money alone, disqualify me as an entrepreneur.
However, this realisation also spawns an existential crisis of sorts. If I am not an entrepreneur, what am I supposed to be? I lived my life in a series of experiments, and my CV is surely enough to make the Corporate types look the other way. There is very little hope that I shall ever fit into a 'Person Specification'. For all the talk in the world for T-skills and innovation, the HR departments have not been set up to find people who have, for all their lives, wanted not to be boxed. And, even if one is kind enough to view my experiments and explorations, as they really were, as a series of compromises, they would quickly spot that I have failed to compromise into anything in particular.
A kinder view of my 2016, which I hope to be able to afford with a long view, a few years hence, would perhaps mark not just the end of my search for an entrepreneurial bliss, but the beginnings of an experiment that leads to a new professional identity. Notwithstanding the depairing tone at the beginning of this post, I have made a number of new starts, distinctly outside my comfort zone. For once, I have started saying no to investors and opportunities, and rather, resumed my commitment, which once was central, to one big goal in life, something that is exciting enough to keep me focused, but big enough not to ever have been fully achieved in a lifetime. This has also made me think about my writing and research more seriously and more committedly (strange though that this has reduced the frequency of my blogging) and I have taken the leap of going back to school to study something I wanted to study all my life. And, I have taken time to live within my stories, making them come true even if for a short while, reaching deep in search of that creative departure that may truly change my life.
So, back to the current moment and habitual blogging, one good thing perhaps is that I am dreaming better for 2017 than I ever did for any of the previous years. My projects are now bolder, and my approach more courageous, not at the mercy of men with money but dedicated to truer departures. I may indeed start new enterprises, but will now do so without being an entrepreneur; I shall write without trying to sell my ideas; and, I shall go through 2017 without counting my successes or failures, but in commitment to one final, unwavering, goal.
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.