Kishore Mahbubani calls India an 'Open Society with a Closed Mind' - in contrast with China's 'Closed Society with an Open Mind' - and he is certainly right. The apparent diversity of India, its vibrant democracy, quarrelsome TV programming and English speaking middle classes hide more than they tell: The first impression of 'everything goes' is deceptive and India presents one of the toughest environments for new ideas.
This may sound counter-intuitive to those who are always afraid of the Chinese stealing their intellectual property. I am not necessarily arguing that the Chinese don't, but rather that they do because they are in the same race of creating new stuff. India is a comparatively safer environment not because Indians are more honest or they have greater regards for intellectual property in the Western sense, but because they care less about new ideas.
The other contra angle is certainly that of the great inventors and thought leading Indians who could be found all over the world, leading their fields. If Indians are not inventive, where do they come from? This is the other distinction that needs to be made: This is not about the Indians not being inquisitive or inventive, but rather about the ideas environment in India that generally discourages new ideas. The argument I make is not about Indians' minds, but about the abstract 'Indian Mind'.
So, what about it? Those who work with new ideas know that there are two kinds of environments: There are those places where new ideas are met with curiosity and excitement, and then, there are places where the first reactions are always reasons why they may not work. Indeed, most new ideas don't work and this is not about the merit of the ideas at all. In some cultures, new possibilities are welcome and encouraged, and tried on - and fail if they must. In the other, new ideas are discouraged and one must prove that they work before getting an audience. Indian workplaces - businesses, universities and government departments - are usually the latter kind of space than the former.
Indeed, broad stereotypes such as these invariably can be excepted. There are great innovative places in India, surely, even if I don't know of them. In real life, my thumb rule is usually to ask people I am talking to, even before I started discussing anything new with them, what books they read: I assume I have better chances with fiction readers - science fiction readers are absolutely perfect, but I can live with those read Thrillers or Historical Fiction too - than those who read Management books (particularly those with seven rules or sixteen tips). Indeed, this is a very imprecise stereotype: There is a whole category of 'sedative fiction', not those which put you to sleep but allow you to stay awake without your brain working, which I overlook. But this has generally worked for me. But, this rule also upholds my observations about 'Closed Mind', India being one of the most vibrant markets for management books, with a thriving market of sedative fiction and an impressive output of Cinema with borrowed or stolen themes or tunes. Originality does not seem to be a commonly admired trait.
Why is this so? There are kind and unkind historical explanations, which offer a good starting point. Indian culture is dominated by 'settled people', the inhabitants of Gangetic plains, and one can associate a level of contentedness with settled cultures. The predominant religion of India, Hinduism, is a 'locative' religion, which sees the current state of human life as a manifestation of nature's will and consequently lacks the 'utopian' zeal to search for a better world in the future. Also, within the broader Indian worldview, nothing new actually can be created - all new things are essentially discoveries of pre-existing possibilities - and some observers cite this as a contributing factor. And, indeed, there are the unkind explanations, such as tropical climate contributing to a certain lethargy of body and spirit, and Max Weber's characterisation of Hindu religion as 'Irrational and Inactive' (so much for German love of all things Indian).
However, none of these explanations would really stand any scrutiny, primarily because Ancient India had this extraordinarily inventive civilisation. It was only more Hindu then! Besides, India is not all Hindu, and definitely not just one flavour of Hindu - the religion itself was extremely diverse and open, and Indians went on to create more than one major World Religions. Some observers, notably Sanjeev Sanyal, point to the opposite cause therefore: They locate the 'closing' of the Indian mind somewhere around the Eleventh century, when Indian princes lost out to Arab invaders, and India went through nearly thousand years of 'foreign domination', serving the Arabs, Central Asians and latterly, the English. However, this is also somewhat motivated telling - Mr Sanyal was trying to invoke a new, Hindu, renaissance of India - because this narrative omits what it wishes to omit, eight hundred years of very varied and multicultural history of innovation and progress under Pathan and Mughal rule, a part of an Islamic Enlightenment whose heritage is idelogically uncomfortable in today's India. The historical diagnostic of 'closed mind' is itself an example of 'closed mind', therefore.
On the contrary, it is rather easy to point to another time period - from early to Middle Nineteenth Century - when the old landed elite was replaced by a new rentier class (who had little connections with the land and the communities they governed), a new education system trained a new professional class to replace the old scribal classes, and the Indian imagination was put in a decidedly subjugated position. With the deliberate decimation of Sanskrit and Persian, Indians were suddenly a people without history. As the Indians signed up to learn English and find a new life, they accepted their positions not as originators and shapers of ideas, but implementers and foot-soldiers of received ones. The tradition, as evidenced by the popularity of Management Books, continues.
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
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,
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
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
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
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
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
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.