A MATTER OF FAITH

SEP 10, 2012 | ARTICLES, LEADERSHIP.

Published in Corporate Dossier, ET, August 10, 2012 If you read the mission statements of the biggest companies in the news for wrong reasons today, Barclays, HSBC and UBS, they are all so sanctimonious but if you see their deeds, they have clearly no respect for those. Shouldnt companies with a large set of stakeholders take their mission statements seriously? If not then,why pretend to be holier than thou?

Once upon a time there were slaves who lived in the river-valley of Egypt. This was a rich land. There was enough food but no freedom. Then one day, a prophet appeared amongst them and spoke of a Promised Land far away, a land of milk and honey. The slaves were so inspired by this vision that they left the familiar discomfort of Egypt, braved the wrath of the pharaoh, and the vagaries of the wilderness to find it. Vision statement of a company is essentially the Promised Land that is meant to inspire and give direction to the employees. But once outside Egypt, the followers of the prophet expressed their freedom by worshipping a golden calf. The Promised Land was all but forgotten. So the prophet presented the commandments of God, carved in stone, on what was appropriate conduct. These commandments of the prophet are the principles of governance to ensure ethical conduct as one goes about realizing the Promised Land. The Bible is full of tales of tortured kings and prophets struggling with faith and the demands of upholding the Commandments and not losing sight of the Promsied Land. In the desert there is nothing to eat. Every day God sends food from the heaven (mannah), just enough for the day. Yet, every day, some doubting follower, grabs a fistful more just in case! Thus there is a constant struggle with faith and with compliance. When there is faith, compliance is not an issue. When there is no faith, compliance is a huge issue. We must never forget that modern business practice arose in North America and Europe. So the Christian influence is very strong in the ideas that have been proposed and universalized. The vision is the Promised Land, the rules are the commandments, the CEO is the king and

the auditors are the prophets. The board of directors, or rather the shareholders, become de facto God. The struggle between faith and compliance is therefore eternal. Christian beliefs joined with scientific principles as the modern business practice rose from industrialization which was an outcome of the scientific revolution. Science holds matters of faith like God in suspicion. The scientific revolution also had a general distrust of authority. Hence great value given to teams through democratic processes, individual prejudice was sought to be removed and thus fairness created. Thus individual businesses gave way to institutional businesses. But since shareholders are humans, and cannot be trusted, regulators were placed above them and above them government. Like Biblical kings and prophets we are trapped in the wilderness, because someone tired of the rules always doubts the vision, and steals mannah. We must always ask ourselves, before we blame the CEO, what does the shareholder prefer: values or profit. Everyone wants profits with values, but when one has to make a choice and pick one, profit wins over values, because without profit survival is at stake, of the individual, the institution and the investor. The question is: how much profit? In a performance-driven culture, failure is not an option, even if vision and values are at stake. We always believe that we can get away, because God/regulator does not exist, can be manipulated, or is not watching. Sometimes we get away, but not always.

Emany Ragha Vinay 2 hours ago

The " Promissed land" .. Is this for the prophet or the slaves? The Vision statements, Now , are for the prophet and seldom for the slaves. The prophet , has a Vision statement of Promissed land, but, our slaves, do they have any clue of how different it is from their current position. Slaves are looking for a promised land, just to escape from their current karma. Their intention remains same in any land. To get better than what they have. Hence, when God sends prophet to them, they opted for a better life than what they have, when god, send food for them, they want better, and they take a larger share. God, as a group company will have a vision. Prophet as a CEO will have a vision. His followers will have a vision. The Vision should be same in all the cases. In reality, do we have it??? A Matter of Faith.. and the faith is?? Do the slaves have faith or hope. If they have faith, then as you said, compliance is guranteed. And if they have hope, then chaos is expected, since, Faith is accepting and Hope is expecting. The prophet accepted God's task and the slaves expected a better future.

mukesh 7 hours ago

it(Faith) is very much the foundation of any relationship whether it is at the level of family or society or any business relationship....yes compliance is always attached to it. but without faith, what one can expect

is incomplete in the sense, what one understood the meaning of 'faith'. mukesh(fm manzil)

ADVERTISING WIDOWS
SEP 14, 2012 | ARTICLES, MYTH THEORY.

Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, Sept. 09, 2012

All female models on television commercials are widows ! This was a remark made by a friend. Her argument was that none of them wore a bindi, which is the indicator of marital status in most communities of India. I ,then observed the two worlds on TV: the bindi-less world of advertising and the bindi-full world of television serials. Everything from direct-to-home cable services to cosmetics to electronics to food items to paint is being sold by (allegedly) modern young women, who look the same, in pastel colored western outfits that has become the uniform of the young cool generation who do not like bindis. Then there is the world of TV soaps where every woman is (allegedly) traditional because she wears colorful clothes full of bling with jewelry and bright cosmetics and creative bindis and red color that spreads less in the parting of the hair

and tends to spill more on the forehead. Both are catering to Indian consumers. Are they talking to different worlds: advertising for modern India 1 and serials for traditional India 2 (Bharat)? Who is getting the communication right? I am confused. Is bindi a cultural symbol or a secular or a religious symbol? Does expectation to wear it mean one is a Right-wing fundamentalist? Does market research reveal that most Indian women, at home, do not wear bindi? Where is this decision of cultural erasure coming from? No one really knows the origin of the bindi. One can only speculate. Even this is difficult as the marks on the forehead have many regional variations. Painting sacred marks on the forehead was perhaps an ancient ritual way to draw attention to that the one thing that separates humans from animals the faculty of imagination that springs from the human brain located behind the forehead. Some say this marks the third eye, the uniquely human ability to discriminate and analyze and understand the world. Red color of vermillion represented potential of the mind. It represented the earth, blood of the hunted animal or the fallen enemy, as well as menstrual fluid. In case of women, a dot (bindu) was put in the center of the forehead. In case of men, the dot was stretched upwards to create the tilak. In case of women especially in North and East India, the red color was sometimes put in the parting of the hair to indicate post-marital status. When stretched horizontally, it was used to indicate sacrifice. At some point, bindi came to be associated with femininity in many communities of India, to be worn by women after marriage and to be wiped away following widowhood. Since there was no such symbol in men to indicate their marital status, bindi naturally came to be viewed as a patriarchal imposition. Some women used large bindis to reaffirm their ethnicity and Indianness; I remember one fashion designer calling these bullet-hole bindis. In USA, there was a hate group called dot-busters in the mid-8Os that targeted South Asians. Now that the dots are disappearing, thanks to modernity, I guess we have nothing to fear any more.

CLOTH AND CULTURE

SEP 17, 2012 | ARTICLES, INDIAN MYTHOLOGY.

Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, August 26, 2012

Cloth is an indicator of culture. It indicates the presence of a farm for sheep or cotton or silkworms. It indicates the presence of a spindle for spinning yarn and a loom for weaving cloth. Then there are the dyers, the embroiderers and the tailors who take fabric to another level. As cloth is woven and clothing stitched, the human understanding of the world creeps into the threads and the folds and the stitches. In India, there were naked gods and naked goddesses. Naked gods were ascetics the sky clad ones, the Digambars, their nakedness an expression of their desire for nothing. Naked goddesses on the other hand were embodiments of the wilderness, the raw and untamed Yoginis, Matrikas, Mahavidyas, sexual and violent at the same time. Cloth was given to the men to turn the hermit into the householder and cloth was given to the women to domesticate the forest and turn them into field. Cloth civilized man and tamed the earth. Even today, in Goddess temples, such as the one of Vaishno-devi in Jammu, offerings of red veils with gold edges are made as the devotee seeks to see her not in her naked ferocity but as a demure bride and loving mother. Shiva, that face of God which destroys through indifference, wears no cloth. If he is not naked, then he drapes himself with animal hide, either flaying wild animals alive or simply

taking skins of animals dead on the forest floor. Vishnu, that face of God that preserves through engagement, is associated with fabric the finest muslin and silk. According to one of the many folklores found amongst the Padmashali weaver community of Andhra Pradesh, the first thread emerged from the navel of Vishnu, the same navel from which sprung Brahma, the father of all living creatures. This thread was given by Bhavana Rishi to the weavers so that they could weave cloth for the gods. Thus fabric is the gift of Vishnu, the lord of civilized conduct. And this association with the making and selling of cloth has made the Padmashali very respected members of society. So important was the role of the tanti or weaver that esoteric practices like Tantra used the vocabulary of the weavers to explain the nature of the world. Thus the consciousness and matter became the warf and the woof of the cosmic loom, creating the fabric of life.

FASHION OF THE GODS

AUG 18, 2012 | ARTICLES, INDIAN MYTHOLOGY.

Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, July 22, 2012

I was browsing through famous fashion designer, Wendell Rodrigues wonderful book on Goan fashion:Moda Goa. In tracing earliest fashion that may have existed in the Goan region, we enter the realm of mythology and discover images of gods still worshipped who display what would have been the clothes of our ancestors. I say our ancestors, and not just ancient Goan clothing, because I realized the same clothing would have been seen across India. Goa, like much of the Western coast of India, is associated with Parashuram, the Ram who held an axe, and belonged to the clan of Bhrigu sages. It is postulated that he is perhaps a mythic embodiment of sages who brought the Vedic way of thinking to a land that was otherwise inhabited by hill tribes (there are cave drawings and markings in Goa that can be traced to the Stone Ages).

What did Parashuram and the sages wear? It was probably valkal fabric made by beating the leaves and the bark of the banyan or pipal fig trees. They may have also used animal hide. And bedecked themselves with flowers (Lakshmis lotus), and leaves (Hanumans Arka) and seeds (Shivas Rudraksha). What stands out in the later period is the use of unstitched cloth draped in various ways around the body, and extensive use of jewelry. Both these fashions indicate rise of settled communities because spinning, weaving, dying, mining, smelting and smithy demands expertise. Some of the images the most spectacular being that of Bhairava, known locally as Betaal reveal guardian gods and fertility goddesses who wear nothing but huge chunky jewelry. Was this reality or artistic fantasy ? We will never know. But many tribes around the world wear jewelry and expose parts of the body that modern society considers private. A common dress worn by the tribes even today, and could have been worn in ancient times, is a simple woolen blanket thrown over the shoulders and a loin cloth around the genitals, or a sarong wrapped around the waist. Were these the clothes that the vanars or monkeys of Kishkinda wore when they encountered Ram and Lakshman? With the rise of what is called the classical, or pre-Islamic period, comes the use of men and women draping cloth mostly cotton, sometimes Indian silk and occasionally shimmering expensive Chinese silk with gold threads interwoven one cloth for the poor to cover the lower parts, two cloths for the slightly rich to cover the upper and lower bodies, and three clothes for the very rich to cover even the head with a veil or turban. Gradually, women in Goa, as in many parts of the Deccan, wore the eight or nine yard sari, the upper and lower garment fused into one, wrapped creatively, the lower part like a dhoti and the upper part like a shawl draped across the breasts. It is interesting to see how the dress of the gods changes with time. The fashion of the gods influenced the community and the community influenced the gods. Typical of Goa and Karnataka, the Shiva-linga is covered with huge brass and silver masks. And the face looks like a Maratha warrior complete with moustache and turban. And the goddesses have a classical half-moon-shaped nose-ring, which is common in Maharashtra too. Interesting too is the importance to cosmetics, especially pastes and unguents to wash the body and keep away body odor. Hence the practice of giving daily baths with oil and water and unguents to deities, a reminder of what the devotees are also supposed to do. One does not realize how much knowledge is locked in the temples of India. We just have to look and I am glad Wendell did.

YOU STILL EAT WITH YOUR HANDS

AUG 28, 2012 | ARTICLES, MODERN MYTHMAKING.

Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, August 05, 2012

You STILL eat with your hands. This is a comment (allegedly) made by Oprah Winfrey in her show on India, suggesting as if eating with hands is something primitive and undesirable. Such cultural insensitivity from a TV hostess renowned for her empathy! Why this disgust about eating with hands? Tribes in Africa eat with their hands. Tribes in Australia eat with their hands. Tribes in America eat with their hands. Greeks did not use cutlery. Romans did not use the fork and knife. And Jesus certainly broke bread with his hands. Long before cutlery became fashionable in Europe, chopsticks were used in China. The oldest ones, made of bronze, have been dated to 1000 BC. In the Orient, it is considered uncivilized to serve a guest food that has to be cut or torn with a knife or speared by a fork.

In Europe, during the Middle Ages, food was eaten on hardened stale bread called trenchers. Knives were used not because they were necessary but because it was impressive. Men impressed ladies by cutting slices of meat, spearing it and offering it to them. In the 16th century Catherine de Medici took the first fork (or the two-pronged split spoon as it was called) from Italy to France as part of her dowry. Everybody laughed but eventually everyone mimicked her, as eating with it became a sign of snobbery and aristocracy. It is interesting that the rise of use of cutlery can be mapped to rise of European imperialism, American colonization and African slavery. Eating by hand came to be associated with natives, laborers and servants. But think about it, at formal dinners the Indian Army and the Indian Government expects all its officers and diplomats to use cutlery. That is proper. The option of eating with the hand does not exist. A colonial hangover? So why chastise Oprah? One can understand that in cold countries the hands would be covered with gloves and so eating using an instrument would have made immense sense. This need led to the innovation of the fork in Europe and the chopstick in China. But in warm countries like South Asia and Middle East, eating by hand always made immense sense. One can argue that hands are dirty and even unhygienic. But that argument does not hold if there is water and soap and towels available to wash and wipe hands. In many parts of North India, while roti is eaten by hand, people prefer using the spoon while eating rice. This must have something to with having grains sticking on the fingers, which is much more while eating rice and much less while eating bread. In Vedic texts, food is a goddess and fingers are the midget sages known as Valakhilyas. The sages carry the goddess to our mouths so that we sustain ourselves. In Jyotisha, the five fingers are associated with the five elements: earth (little finger), water (ring finger), air (middle finger), ether (index finger) and fire (thumb). Thus when we eat by hand, the five elements get symbolically connected with the food. But such symbolism and speculations do not matter as one gets more modern and civilized, I guess.

Sujoy 17 days ago

Its wonderful how you explain the context of fingers. In Gyan Vigyan Yoga of Bhagwath Gita... The God talks about these five elements of and three more which is part of Nature created by him. They are Mann (Mind), Buddhi (Intelligence) and Ahankar (Ego). It is important how they play a role in the way we prepare our food using the other five - Bhumi (Earth), Aap (Water), Anal (Fire), Vaayu (Air) and Kham (Ether). But what is most "Param" (Supreme) of these all eight is the Energy in Life Form which sustains

all that is within human and nature. It is important to keep having that source of Energy (ATP) in order to sustain --- how you get it is not very relevant!!!

ON THOSE WE DEPEND
JUN 25, 2012 | ARTICLES, LEADERSHIP.

Published in Corporate Dossier ET, April 27, 2012 In Puri Temple, Orissa, every year when the chariot is made from the wood of a sacred tree, worship is offered to the tree, the instruments that will be used to carve the tree and the carpenter who will turn the tree into the chariot. Even in household rituals, before the deity is worshipped, prayers and offerings are made to the implements of worship like the bell, the pot, the conch-shell, and the lamp. Thus every link in the chain is worthy of worship. Does this make Hindus monotheists or polytheists? This question confronted 19th century Orientalists when they first translated Vedic hymns. They noticed that each hymn of the Veda evoked different gods, like the Greeks, but each time the deity being invoked was being treated as the one supreme god, like the Christians. This confused them. Some suggested Hindus were henotheistic; they worshipped only one god but acknowledged the existence of others. Max Mueller came up with the term kathenotheistic, which means every god was treated as the supreme god turn-by-turn at the time of invocation. In other

words, context determined the status of the god. In drought, Indra who brought rains was valued. In winter, Surya, the sun, was admired. In summer, Vayu, the wind, was worshipped. So it is in business. Everybody we deal with in business is important. But importance soars as our dependence on them increases. Importance is a function of context, which makes all businessmen followers of kathenotheism. Sivakumar owns a small company that makes spare parts for cars. The business has been growing well. Sivakumar allocates one day a week with every department. Monday is for sales & marketing, Tuesday is for logistics, Wednesday is for production, Thursday is with finance, Friday is with human resources, Saturday is with admin and all contract workers. When asked by his secretary why he scheduled his day so, he said, Each one of them contributes to my success. So I give each of them value by devoting an hour each day for each department. Every department matters, and every department is special. If I focus only on one department, the others will feel neglected and even negative, which I do not want. By valuing all of them, I ensure no hierarchy is created. Each one is important in their own way. The business depends on all of them. Rakesh who is Sivakumars main rival in the market, has a different strategy. For him customers are god and everything and everyone in the company is geared to satisfy the customers. He values the customer-facing department more than the rest. This ensures great revenue and clarifies the value of customers. Both Sivakumar and Rakesh do well in the market. Both make profits. But their approach to managing their teams is very different. Sivakumar follows the model of katheotheism: there are many gods, each valued depending on context. Rakesh follows the model of monotheism: there is only one God, the customer.

THE WORLD IS NEVER FLAT

SEP 08, 2012 | ARTICLES, LEADERSHIP.

Published in Corporate Dossier, ET, August 17, 2012 Is it advisable to have a totally flat organization where there is no differential treatment or extra perks or privileges given on the basis of seniority (except perhaps in salary) Examples: reserved parking, special canteens, larger cabins, business class travel, etc. Would this motivate people more or cause dissatisfaction in the ranks? The idea of a flat organization where everyone is equal is a romantic idea, with its roots in the French Revolution, which demanded equality for all citizens, unlike the earlier feudal order where the King saw himself as a representative of God on earth and there was a hierarchy that determined identity as well as access to resources and privileges. The idea of equality is strong in Abrahamic religions. Hence the greeting Shalom in Judaism (from where comes the word salaam we use in India) which means peace be with you and not salute as is popularly believed, for everyone is equal before God and man

should bow to none other than God. Equality is the reason why Muslims are encouraged to eat from the same plate, sitting together in a circle. But in nature, all things exist in hierarchy. The strongest, or the smartest, eats first and most. Since it is all about survival of the fittest, everyone is competing to be stronger or smarter, hence all packs and herds have a pecking order. The biggest tree will take the most sunlight. A lion will not share its food with a hungry lioness. So hierarchy is the natural, the default state of beings. Equality is human design, a dream, an aspiration. In Hindu mythology, Shiva does not care for organizational structure and hierarchy while Daksha Prajapati is obsessed with structure and hierarchy. The two are in conflict. But to be Shiva, one has to outgrow desire for all things material. He is comfortable allowing serpents to slither on top of his body; he does not mind drinking poison; he is happy wrapping his body with animal hide, not bedecking it with silks and gold. How many people in our company will be happy allowing people to walk all over them? How many people in our company are comfortable sharing resources and being treated equally? Politically the right thing to say is that we must have equal perks in the office. So lets take a case in point: Should everyone have cabins or should we have an open office? Cabins are expensive so the CFO will favor open offices but it will be sold to the company as the right thing to do. An open office demands discipline in people talking softly, using headphones. It demands having conference rooms for group discussions, telephone conversations, meetings and private negotiations. Which means these need to be provided in adequate numbers. But they will always be in short supply, so there will be need for planning, hence someone to monitor and control its usage. Then there will always be emergencies when someone will be forced to forfeit their bookings. When resources are abundant, hierarchy does not matter. But when resources are in short supply, hierarchies come into the picture. And in business, resources are always in short supply as everyone is pushing the envelope. As corporate animals, we aspire to be bigger, faster, stronger. The best gets gold. We want gold. We want the better office in the corner, the bigger car, the great address. We can, of course, outgrow this desire. It is the noble thing to do. When we are all noble, the flat organization will surely come into being. Until then, it will remain a desirable delusion of authority that those below are compelled to grin and bear.

THE KOTWAL OF KASHI

AUG 23, 2012 | ARTICLES, INDIAN MYTHOLOGY.

Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, July 29, 2012

The city of Kashi is famous for the shrine of Kaal Bhairav, the kotwal of Kashi or the policeman of Varanasi. His presence evokes fear, no different from some of our policemen. He has a thick moustache, rides a dog, wraps himself in tiger skin, wears a garland of skulls, has a sword in one hand and in another, holds the severed head a criminal. People go to his shrine to do jhaad: sweeping of hex. Hex means the disruption of ones aura through witchcraft (jadoo-tona) and malefic gaze (drishti or nazar). Black threads and iron bracelets are sold in shops around the temple, offering Kaal Bhairavs protection to the devotee. The story goes that Shiva took the form of Bhairava to behead Brahma who became arrogant after creating the world. Brahmas head seared into Shivas palm and he wandered the earth chased by Brahma-hatya, the infamy of killing the creator. Shiva finally descended from Kailas southwards along the river Ganga. A point came when the river turned north. At this point, he dipped his hand in the river, and Brahmas skull became undone and Shiva was thus liberated form Brahma-hatya. This became the site of the famous city of Avimukta (site where one is liberated) which is now called Kashi. It is said

that the city stands on Shivas trident. Shiva stayed here as the guardian, driving away all those who threaten the city, protecting its inhabitants. The idea of eight Bhairavs guarding the eight directions (four cardinal and four ordinal) is a common theme in various Purans. In the south, many villages have the shrine of 8 Vairavar (local name for Bhairav) in the eight corners of the village. Bhairava is thus acknowledged as the guardian god. In many Jain temples, Bhairav stands along with his consort, Bhairavi, as a guardian god. In Gujarat and Rajasthan, one hears of Kala-Bhairav and Gora-Bhairav, the black and white guardians, who watch over shrines of the Goddess. Kala-Bhairav is more popularly known as Kaal, the black (Kala) referring to the black hole of time (Kaal) that consumes everything. Kaal Bhairav is associated with alcohol and wild frenzy. By contrast, Gora Bhairav or Batuk Bhairav (the small Bhairav) is visualized as a child who likes to drink milk, maybe laced with bhang. The name Bhairav is rooted in the word bhaya or fear. Bhairav evokes fear and takes away fear. He reminds us that fear is at the root of all human frailties. It is fear of invalidation that made Brahma cling to his creation and become arrogant. In fear, we cling to our identities like dogs cling to bones and their territories. To reinforce this message, Bhairav is associated with a dog, a symbol of attachment, as the dog wags its tail when the master smiles and whines when the master frowns. It is attachment, hence fear and insecurity, that makes us cast hexes on people and suffer from hexes cast by people. Bhairav liberates us from all.