Not good enough

Edmund Burke said- "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that the good do nothing."

I think this pithy dictum should be emblazoned on every flag, on the currency of every free country. But I do not even see it on t-shirts! It is a sad statement on how we think.

Have you noticed how the most self-righteous people are those who do nothing good? I do not mean that they commit crimes, or even that they get in someone's way. They just do nothing! The justification for their inaction is that they are not being bad.

However, simply not being bad does not make a person good. It is one of those unchanging laws of nature. To be good, one has to do good. Period. Sitting smugly on the sidelines of life, and patting ourselves on the back because we are not adding to the evil in the unfolding drama is just not right. More pertinently, our very lack of involvement is engendering the very injustices we repudiate.

I was watching a programme on Science channel and I was fascinated by what they said about conditions on other solar planets. If we were on a planet with no atmosphere, it would be as if we were breathing in poison. There not being any breathable air has exactly the same effect as there being poisonous air. We do not have to defile the air; just removing the oxygen is enough to kill. When there is no pressure in the air, our blood would boil as if it was being heated. A very high temperature can do that certainly, but it is the same if we just remove the pressure that is required for survival! Just a simple dearth of the required beneficial things is more deleterious than we can comprehend.

One cannot set up a community of nice people with nice building and lovely parks and expect the status quo to be maintained forever. All entities, physical or biological, must obey the laws of physics. To keep things in place, constant input of work is required. So also in the more crucial world of emotions. You need to keep feeding positive energy for anything to remain wholesome. Brain, soul, imagination, intellect- every human component needs to be nourished to bloom in its most marvelous manifestation. And the essential pabulum is basic good, honest virtue.

If we are not moving ahead, we are definitely not progressing. But stagnation is not only 'staying put', it itself is a regression. Just as knowledge feeds on itself to grow, so does good. Stopping learning is like walking backward. And not actively making the effort to help, to assuage, to comfort, hinders a furthering of civilization. And if civilization is not being furthered, it deteriorates. Entire civilizations have disappeared because powerful rulers have rested on their laurels.The physical body dies without nutritious food. The spirit dies without hope and love. The mind rots without constant use and learning. Society will collapse if it is not continually furnished with selfless acts of kindness and charity. All of us- the good and kind, the open minded and responsible, all we need to do to let the vile and corrupt take control of our world is, well, just nothing.

Fulfillment

One of my very dear friends put up a quote on her Facebook about a woman's fulfillment being dependent between a man and a career.

It got me thinking about fulfillment. So what would constitute contentment? A person is spirit and body together. For any form of satisfaction of the human psyche the body demands its nourishment, but it is the pabulum for the soul that is crucial.

Mental stimulation is fundamental for meaningful existence, whether you are fond of intellectual pursuits or not. It maybe gossip or fashion at its very banal, or philosophy when you prefer it to be more intense. It may even be the cartoon you like to watch and laugh at. Or it may be the stars and the universe you like to study. In any articulation, the mind needs to speak; even more so for a woman's mind.

You may be the CEO of a very successful company and have an adoring husband who looks like George Clooney, but if none of your psychological faculties are being engaged, your life is empty.

Also of equal importance is emotional satisfaction. And it does not stop with the man in your life. The plethora of emotions a person has need to be exhibited and expressed - laughter, empathy, grief, joy- and not in one simple, standard form, but in varying degrees, encompassing an arc across the human consciousness. One relationship cannot satisfy this range. So we need friends and family, co-workers and neighbours.

I would not want my life to be defined in any way by anything external to me- not a career, not a man. My life is definitely, infinitely, more. My sense of being has a little to do with the people in my life, and little to do with my work- but only a little. I am identified by how I act, what I hold dear, and what I believe. My family is a big chunk of who I am, my writing is a big part me, my mediocre career has its portion too; but it is certainly not all that there is. I find it gratifying that my life is so much more than any one (or two) things. The resulting total of everything is a unique amalgam that is much more than the sum of the parts itself.

It may be the world around us that makes us. But it is after all, the world within us that defines us.

Action is not for Reaction

Its been a while since I let my brain ramble. I had to let it concentrate on getting my breath in and out. Its fascinating how the physiological self has such a tremendous drive for survival even if if the emotional self is apathetic about it. Or is it so because of the indifference of the conscious self? But that is a topic for another day.

I was wondering how pre-knowledge of the result would effect the causal action(s). Would people do differently if they actually KNEW the end result of their actions? I am not talking of "I would have sold the house in time and made money"; or "I would not have not spoken to that creep." Simplistically, it is easy to not start the car at all if you knew that you were going to back into a tree. It is also quite immaterial . You are, after all, expected to look in the rear-view before you put the car in reverse.

Let us think about things we do not usually cogitate about. Would you say the the things you spewed out in anger if you knew what effect it was having on the other person? You might not even have any anger left if you knew how guilty or hurt the person is. Or how scared. Would you speak up or shout back if you knew that bottling up is leading up to the coronary you will have in a few years? If you knew the result of internalizing, would you lash out? Verbally or otherwise?

Would Saddam Hussein have continued with his horrendous activities if he knew it would lead him to hiding in a hole, and finally an ignominious hanging? Somehow I doubt that he would have changed. He might have been more oppressive, more power-hungry, more bellicose to avoid that fate.

I do not believe kids who say 'It was an accident' when they swing their arms and hit someone smack in the face. That is just an excuse they have learnt from parents. An accident is something you have no control of, like falling on someone when you lose your balance. If you have the tendency to swing arms in a room you already know the consequences. It would be an accident if you lived alone in an oasis and never had people around you before.

The point is that the concept of 'if I knew I would have done differently' is not plausible. The child who never studied, would never have - even if you showed his alternate future to him on blu-ray DVD! You would have taken that job even if you knew beforehand that the boss is a rude megalomaniac because there are heaps of other considerations you made; and because you never know with other bosses. Like Hamlet says, "Tis better to bear the ills we have than to fly to others we know not of." Conscience does not only make cowards of us all, it makes us accepting of things we do not want to change. Even if Hamlet knew the ills that he would accost I doubt he would leave those he was already familiar with!

People do things because of what they are, and what they believe. Their actions are not predicated on outcomes. The driving force for the criminal to kill is his ingrained violence and belligerence, not the notion of having a world without the victim! The gentleman opens the door for a lady not because he wants to hear a 'thank-you' but because that is what he always does.

Human beings are wired to do things that make them comfortable. Their actions bespeak their attitudes and values. I believe that every act by a person is statement of his being and ego at the time. It has very little to do with what he wants to happen, even though that is the premise everyone acknowledges. We do nothing for what might be, we do only because we are.

Overrated Education

I believe education is overrated.

There are very few of us who have studied what we should have, or pursued a line of learning that we really liked. Sometimes we do things because its 'in'. Sometimes we pursue a study program because the end result is a job with a fat paycheck. Sometimes we join simply because we just have to do something, so we pick at random some courses that will give us the ability to tick mark 'completed 4 -year college' in application and survey forms. We become doctors, and teachers, and real estate agents. And sadly, a lot of us just are not meant to be what we studied to be.

How many of us go to study for the joy of learning something? Or to advance in a field that actually has caught our imagination? It is strange that people tend to ask young adults, "What do you want to be?" Education should define not the 'thing' you become, but the person you will grow into. People should ask, 'So who do you want to be?" Learning should interpret the who of us, not the what. Education unfortunately seems to mess that up totally. Why else would a budding scientist have to learn a foreign language? Why would a budding writer have to pass calculus? To justify a professor's salary?

I will never understand why the degree is so important for recognizing that a person is capable of responsible work. I know people personally who have double degrees under their belt and do not know when to stop talking; who assume that India and Pakistan are indistinguishable (and that particular bit of ignorance really riles me!!). Their years of attending classes has not taught them to be responsible with things - their own or those entrusted to them, it has not taught them to practice discipline - in finances, or speech.

So what has education taught them? And why should the piece of paper they hold be of any value at all if they cannot hold up to its promise? Of what use is a degree certifying that you have attended Psychology 500 or Socials 400 if you have not developed the civic courtesy to be sensitive to the needs of those around you? Or the plain intellect to respond to it once it is pointed out to you? And of what use its the Masters in Literature if you cannot write a coherent paragraph five years after graduation?

My workplace is filled with people who have higher degrees than I hold. And it is one place which gives me a terrible superiority complex by the end of the day! Most of my colleagues know nothing, they have learnt nothing except to walk around with Dunkin Donuts coffee telling everyone how tired they are.

There are always a few people everywhere who seem to belong to the job they are doing. We all know wonderful teachers, great doctors, talented actors. Let us not credit that solely to their education! It is a lucky chance or the rare understanding of themselves that placed them in the line of education and work that they are suited for. Excellence, however, is not a product of education. It is the result of personal aptitude, or perserverance, or sheer talent. Greatness, like goodness, always begins from within. Circumstances have more to do with it flourishing than education. Gandhi never studied non-violence. Charles Dickens did not study literature. I would add that Darwin did not study biology but I personally think he is an idiot anyway. Mendel, the father of genetics, had not a clue about the term 'genes', let alone a degree certifying that he did. If Newton was in a classroom instead of under a tree, we would have never known about gravity. Einstein would not have thought of the Theory of Relativity if he was caught up with a homework essay on a subject like Women's Rights.

I guess what I am trying to say that degrees are not something one needs to base their self-respect on. One of the most able women I have known was born is the very early 1900s. She could not even hold a pencil, but she had a depth of wisdom that is hard to believe. She held her family together through many major family crises. She ran a farm, actually prospered, and left her children enough wealth to last a few generations. But the most invaluable asset she bequeathed to them is the respect that she garnered form society for her family. Not only by the power of wealth, but by the relationships she developed. And she certainly took no courses in emotional intelligence. Daniel Goleman may have written the badly written bestseller on the subject, but people have been practicing what he put on paper since time immemorial (Yes, he made money by delineating something that almost every sensible person already knows!).

What we learn should add to the person we already are and develop the potential that is in us. It should not be something that is an offshoot to our personality. Adding offshoots not only detracts from ourselves, it distorts us. Unfortunately, that is what education today seems all about.

Marriage: A Work in Progress

One of the bedrock institutions of society is marriage. It lays a foundation for that essential unit of society - family. Families grow, not only by procreation, but also by bonds between two groups of people that come together because of the union.

Marriage, however, is not an end in itself. Most young people believe the work is done once the knot is tied and the wedding guests have departed. The work, as most married couple know - begins after the ceremony - and continues all through life! A beautiful wedding is wonderful, but it pales in comparison to the wondrous beauty of a dynamic, strong marriage where people grow together as individuals, as a couple, and as a family. By its very nature marriage is labile. People change as they grow older physically, emotionally, and spiritually. What are the chances of you still loving or even tolerating each other as you grow and change? Every experience, and every person one meets, leaves an impression that becomes a part of one's personality. The very same experiences a couple goes through may have entirely different effect on each of them. The test of the marriage lies in adjusting with your partner 's changing attitudes and habits. Lets face it- love has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of maturity and commitment. It is also matter of how much respect is there in the marriage - respect for the partner, for self , and for the personal space each individual needs.

Sometimes, especially in eastern cultures, a marriage is maintained just because it has to be. The word in hindi for the relationship is 'bandhan', loosely meaning 'bondage' or a 'tie that binds'. And anything that binds, hurts. And a relationship, any relationship, that fosters pain does not last. But the bonds that a marriage cultivates usually grow softer, yet stronger with the years, evolving with the growing maturity of those involved. A successful couple weathers upheavals of life maybe not by surmounting them, but by simply surviving them.

So what should one look for in a life partner? Looks change immeasurably - for better or worse, likes and dislikes are modified by experiences. Wealth can be ephemeral and maybe the shallowest of the criteria. We see people with entirely different religions leading a happy life together. And we have seen so many good-looking people married very happily to their complete opposite in the looks department. On the other hand, there are instances of stable and well-adjusted couples falling apart after years of staying faithfully together.

It is widely accepted that the surest bet to predict a harmonious marriage is to look for its core values. And that is why people tend to marry within the same cultural setup. Its much easier to find a match for your core values within similar societal settings. But that is not always the case, and core values also tend evolve as life progresses.

I believe each successful marriage develops a core value of its own. A core value is something more than just a shared vision, or a joint objective for the future. It is greater than the sum total of their individualities. And the stronger this core value is, the steadier the marriage. It is something you can identify the couple with, together or individually. A core value is not necessarily a moral code, though it could well be. It could also be politics, it could be religion, it could be a predilection to social work or to partying, it even be a common ambition. It is never a conscious effort; it is something that develops along with the couple as they adjust and accept each other as individuals. A core value sets the tone not only for the couple as they face life, it sets the tone of the family they establish. And the cumulative core values of the many families in the community are what build the values of the society they constitute.

As long as there is this core value or a set of values that the couple adhere to, and see each other adhering to, the partnership works. Everything else they face is secondary to their functional unit, be it joys, sorrows, ups or downs. As long as the core value of the marriage is intact, there is trust, respect and companionship. And that is what marriage is all about. Love is just the icing on the cake!

Spare the child, use the rod!

"Spare the rod, spoil the child". It is one of the few truisms that we have made the mistake of discarding. Spare me the scorn you might direct at me-but I do believe in that old adage.

I had written in an earlier article that parents are accountable for badly behaved children. They equally also deserve credit for well-behaved ones. Please understand that we need to distinguish between a terrified, withdrawn child and a polite child. Abuse of any degree is a horrendous, inexcusable crime, especially against children; and it is even more egregious when committed by the child's parents. But when you let a child bully other children, or stamp his feet in public , or yell out invectives, letting him get away with such behaviour is abuse. Letting your children watch TV all day weekend long with a bag of chips while you sleep is abuse (yes, I know of someone who does exactly this) How do I define abuse? Of course, criminally cruel actions, or inaction, are definitely abuse. But the worst, and sadly the most ignored, abuse a child can endure is neglect. Not getting a child to finish homework is abuse; disregarding a child's fear of sleeping alone is abuse too. Extending this line of thinking, ignoring a child's tantrum, or indulging it, is abuse too. A sharp quick slap on the back just as he or she starts yelling in public is parental prerogative. Nay, it is a responsibility. And frankly, it is a duty of aunts and elder siblings if the parent is too self-involved to notice the child's behaviour. I do not mean one neds to deliver a stinging slap. You do not have to hurt the child. A quick, sharp slap on the shin is enough to tell the child that he or she has crossed limits.

Children who have been brought up with proper discipline turn out be better-adjusted adults. And discipline often requires more than the lame 'time-outs' that are so prevalent in modern society. Everyone has to face life the way it is handed to them. A child needs to learn to accept rejection, to understand that they may be underdogs at some point in life; and life is certainly not fair. The emotional tools they need have to be developed in childhood-and if a smack once in while helps them, so be it. They learn to control impulses. They learn to deal with conflicting emotions. They learn to accept that not everything in life will go their way. Teaching them that they cannot always have their way helps them deal with issues that are bound to come up in life.

So what do we as parents and adults in a child's life need to do?

I believe children have been entrusted to us. It is a tremendous responsibility. We answer not only to the little individuals we help rear, but also to the society that they will be a part of. I am disgusted with people who produce children only to have the pleasure of having a baby to cuddle or to 'experience' pregnancy. How can one trivialize such a major decision in life? Caring for a child does not merely mean sacrificing time, sleep, and myriad other little things that may have been a regular part of life until then. One needs to sacrifice a lot of impulse living- and learn to give priority to the many, many, needs of a little one for a long, long time.

Yes, it is easier to give the kid a lollipop so I can continue shopping in peace, but it certainly is not good for him to believe he can whine his way to get one. Yes, it may seem heartless to smack the 3- year old when he continues to throw everything off the table, but that he is what he needs to know. Every one has to learn to live by rules of civility and if the consequence has to be learnt with a firm slap on the back of the palm, do it!

We have coddled our children to the point where they cannot control their own impulses. Over-indulgence of children is rampant in today's generation, and it does not bode well for the next. What kind of a society will it be when people are unable to deal with disappointment or cannot have the instant gratification they have been used to? How can they grow as people if all they have learnt is to take care of their needs, at whatever cost they come?And it is not love that makes us do it. It is plain selfishness. It is so much easier letting children run helter-skelter and pretend to be a soft-hearted, indulgent parent (and look very dumb!). I know its sounds harsh, but only animals live by instinct. And even most of them have very strict rules on how far their babies stray!

There is a reason Humanity has developed society. Successful societies are what define the progress of civilization. Let us be aware that we are answerable to future societies that we are raising today. Hitting a future member of that society for snatching a friend's toy for the third time maybe the most important legacy we leave!

Equitable Equality

I am sure the people who brought us affirmative action were thinking for the good of all us. There is no doubt that they had the best of intentions. I would even agree that affirmative action has really helped.

But enough now. It is a different world today, thank God. Affirmative action was essentially to ensure justice, to vouchsafe everyone the chance, and yes, maybe even that little push, to succeed.

"The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination." This is how Wikipedia.com describes Affirmative Action. An attempt to promote equal opportunity. Operative term - 'EQUAL'.

And now its time to be fair again. Everyone is equal, and everyone needs to be treated that way. Let us all start off on the same footing. You should not get the job because of your ethnicity, but because you are the perfect candidate. How can it be any kind of encouragement to know that you got to be where you are because of some quirk of fate? That you are unfairly reaping the rewards for the past pains of those in your community?

Imagine a situation where two positions are open at a level. And it happens that people of two different races are appointed. It is going to be very difficult for them to consider the other an equal if even one of them thinks he or she got the position (even in part) because of the color of their skin. It is not fair to either to them to be placed in that position.

In India we have the curse of 'Reservation'. A certain percentage of all government jobs, and admissions to government colleges, are reserved for members of backward classes (yes, that is exactly what they are officially called! A classic example of adding insult to injury). Initially established after Independence for 10 years, it has become a political tool and has been renewed every time it has come for review. The Mandal Commission in 1979 was set up to assess the situation of the socially and educationally backward. The commission used the 1930 census figures for a sub-caste, known as the 'Other Backward Classes' and classified 1,257 communities as backward! The OBC population is now at 52% !!! You have to be really unlucky not to be classified into a quota. And if you do crack that entrance exam fully - just pray some OBC does not decide to throw in an application as well.

No one in India is an Untouchable anymore. Why are we still holding onto the concept by discriminating between classes of ages ago? The caste system has been rightly eradicated. Why do we continue with the inequity by officially naming them 'Scheduled Castes and Tribes'. How can that be right? If Gandhi was alive today he would have it stricken off right away.

Mira Kumar recently became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha of India. I am happy she got the position on the basis of what she as accomplished in her political career and not just because she was born into a 'classified' family. She deserves the respect she will so readily get now - from every class of people.

Isn't that what we should aim for - a level playing field for all?

What we need is incentives for people who have made it - or are trying to. Free education for the poor. Special scholarships or grants and awards for the sections of society that need the affirmative action or the reservations. But we should not be handing them something they have not earned. I cannot think of a worse way to humiliate a whole section of population!

On a practical level reservation/affirmative action does not even facilitate growth of that particular community. I believe it does just the opposite. It becomes a way to keep them down even more - since they know they can get by by doing almost nothing. In India, a scheduled caste candidate can fail at an exam and still get the seat in a medical school. So not only have you taught a child never to work to pass any exam ever again, you have probably ruined the hopes of so many others who have struggled and received an A, yet will not get that seat. And of course the risk to patients who will be going to a doctor who could not even pass his entrance! How can it ever be right, in any way?

Programs that are designed to differentiate on any other criteria except merit can only be deleterious to the health of society. They add more wrongs to replace the old injustices. Negating merit is not going to engender reconciliation or growth.

It is a fact that no community is less than or better than the other. Why do we keep endorsing the opposite view by continuing to reserve quotas? Should not all of us repudiate any suggestion of difference between one man from another?

A lot of us need help and encouragement, as individuals and as a community. But it serves no one to set a special set of goodies aside for any particular person. It is not just, and it is certainly not encouragement.