Conversations with Ronak Gusty

Aloneness and Loneliness
Body Mind Connection
Culture versus Conversation
Eastern Manager
Knowing, Its Different Shades of Meaning
Long and Short Term Thinking
Majoritism
“Other” Orientation
Slogans and Lies

Aloneness and Loneliness

"Wherever I go, whichever corner of the world I happen to be in, I take it that I am alone." Ronak once told me with an air of satisfaction.
I was surprised. "In this city too?"
"Sure."
"Hey, but you lived here for so many years, you have so many friends here, and socially, you are fairly active. And how can you say that you are alone?"
"Well, I am."
"Come on, how can you say that. There is no reason for you to feel that way."
"Feeling? Feelings are only a small part of what I am talking about. "
"Then what are you talking about?"
"I am talking about some kind a of a comprehensive position you adopt."
"A comprehensive position you adopt?"
"I know that you don't like what I just said," he said matter-of-factly.
"Nothing like that. It is just that I don't understand," I said is a reconciliatory tone.
"If I were to feel, only feel, that I have nobody out there to be with or talk to, I would say that is loneliness."
"Then what are you talking about?"
"Listen, my friend, please make a distinction between and aloneness and loneliness."
"Aloneness and loneliness! What did you say you are, alone or lonely?" I could not hide my consternation.
"I said I take it that I am alone." he said with finality.
"And lonely?"
"Never."
"Okay, you take it that you are alone. Ron, what does that mean?"
"By choice I have decided to take a worldview that I am alone in terms of views and ideas that I hold. That does not mean that I am impervious to new ideas. I am certainly influenced by the people I meet, books I read, the movies and TV channels I watch, and the experiences I have accumulated over the years. I may concur, in part of full, with many people I come across in person or through these media. But in the final analysis, what I am internally is a complex matrix of ideas that is singularly unique."
"But, everyone accepts that all of us are separate individuals."
"Yes, we all are. But how about the constant awareness that we are separate individuals with unique mental landscapes. This awareness, this realisation, is something that I have come to develop only recently."
"Ron, you were in the past as sure of yourself as are now. I always kind of think that you are born with all that insights you hold! It is difficult for me to believe that you have had this… whatever… realisation only recently."
"Listen my friend, I keep changing all the time. I am the last person to stay in one place."
I tried to hide my admiration and ventured a rhetorical question, "If you keep changing all the time why are you interested in talking about your present state? That too also may change."
"Excellent point. Let me tell you why. By knowing what kind of person I was before such a realisation -- or even by observing others who haven't been through such a realisation -- I know how liberating it is to realise it. I want to share that experience with you and others. Simple."
"But what certainty is there that you will not change your view tomorrow?"
"No certainly at all. In fact, I would rather change. I do not claim that I hold ultimate truths. I only have some working hypotheses that I hold to be true for the time being with all the inputs I have at present. With new information, with new insights, I certainly will grow into a different, better person tomorrow!"
"Oh, I see," I said apologetically wishing I had not questioned his integrity.
I continued, "I kind of understand the difference between aloneness and loneliness. Now what exactly is "adopting a comprehensive position of aloneness"?"
"All that it means is that there is an awareness that influences -- and also get shaped from -- all your deeds, words and thoughts at all times, and there is no convenient wavering even in the most pleasant and unpleasant moments of life."
"And you develop it? I asked.
"Yes."
"How do you do that?"
"Through a conscious process of thinking, feeling, learning, cogitating, discussing, emoting, meditating… Well, it is difficult to point out precisely how. It's a realisation and is an outcome of all those little things."
"Let me understand this. You are saying that aloneness is a realisation. And are you saying that it is through a process of the head and the heart. Is that right?"
"Yes, the head and the heart are involved. May be other organs like nerves are also involved in this. I know too little of biology to comment on that."
"Well, I am talking in common man's parlance."
"Yes, if you are happy to say it that way, I have no problem."
"I think I still have a problem with your description of aloneness. Can you try and describe it comprehensively?" Ron was one who never repeated anything. I just loved to hear him negotiating his thoughts on this subject in different ways.
He thought for a moment and said, "Aloneness is a psychological state wherein you realise that you are a unique combination of ideas, motivations, fears, hopes etc. and that you are alone in seeing and interpreting the world as you do. This realisation liberates you and establishes the uniqueness that each of us is. You also realise that others have such unique mental maps, and that there is every reason to recognise it as such, and respect them."
I was not disappointed. The thing about Ronak Gusty is that once you know what he is talking about, you love to hear him talk. Otherwise you are straining to figure out what the hell he is trying to convey.
"How about your loneliness?" I asked.
"That is a rather narrow idea. When you feel loneliness, it is purely an emotional response to being all by oneself physically or mentally. It arises out of the difficulty to act alone by oneself, or hold out one's ideas independently without fear, usually due to deeper inhibiting factors."
Aloneness and loneliness! Ron is so clear what he has in mind. So beautifully he transcends superficial meanings of words, and plays with ideas with the felicity of a feline playing with a wool pompom!

An earlier version of this appeared "The Hindu", Kochi, Sep 10, 2001

Body Mind Connection

A few days ago Ronak and I were traveling in a bus in interior Karnataka. Ronak had shut his eyes while I looked along the aisle through the front windscreen to catch sights of road signs. I knew we were at least an hour to reach our destination when, at an inconsequential stop, the bus suddenly stopped. As I looked back at the rear door I could see a man carrying a basket of bananas get in. He looked cheerful and unmindful of the weight he was carrying.
I thought to myself, “Why should the driver allow a man carrying his farm produce use this so-called “express” bus?”
Soon the bus started and the man was on his way along the isle and the passengers were making passage for him. He was offering bananas to the passengers! Everyone accepted it without being self-conscious. He breathed out something and I could catch him saying “from the temple.” When my turn came, I too accepted the offer, one for myself and another for Ronak.
Ronak soon “woke up” and our conversation was on the Banana Man.
“That man carried more happiness than the weight of the bananas,” he said.
“Did you see him? I thought you were asleep,” I said.
“I was semi asleep, when I got this strong fruity smell and I looked over to find the man.”
“Oh.”
“In all likelihood he is a priest,” Ronal said.
“How do you know that?”
“The way he held his fingers in “mudra” while handing over the offer.”
“I see. What does that mean?”
“Mudras are a sign language that conveys, among others, the state of mind.”
“What was his state of mind?” I asked without thinking.
“My friend, that is a premature question.”
“Why?”
Ronak said honestly, “You need to understand the meta-issue, the very subject we are talking about before you appreciate his particular state of mind.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Well, first understand what, in general, state of mind is, the way I am defining it. Then you will be better placed to appreciate the particular situation of the banana man in the bus.”
“I understand, you are talking about the “general” and the “particular.”
“Yes, absolutely,” He was excited because I was beginning to get elevated to his plane of thinking.
Lest I missed understanding him, I clarified, “The “general” is about the class of happenings. Algebraically speaking, it is the variable. The particular is the specific instance which belongs to the class of happenings, or, again algebraically, a value the variable takes.”
“Excellent.”
I asked, “Okay, so what is the “general” here?”
He knew I was capable of understanding him and he said with satisfaction, “It is a deliberate awareness, a deliberate bringing of the mind to a particular state.”
I parroted, “The “general” here is about bringing the mind to a desired state of mind?”
“Precisely, with awareness he could do that, and the mudra helped him do that.”
“How? What has that to do with mudras?”
“Mudra is a metaphor of body language. The mudra in which he held out the bananas reinforces some state of mind. In this case, it was the awareness in him that he is giving and that his act in ennobling.”
“Oh, I see. The “particular” in his case is that the act of giving is ennobling?” I asked.
“Yes, you got it my friend.”
“But how many of the priests understand this.”
Ronak explained, “Possibly very very few. That’s why a person such our banana man strikes you as exceptional. All symbolic acts have significance only when they are accompanied with the right thought. The physical act tells the mind, through pre-programming, what the thought ought to be. Conversely, the mind also tells the body to act in a particular way. For a priest, a good portion of learning is about this mind-body co-ordination!”
I was beginning to see the grand perspective he held.
He continued, “This applies particularly to repeated acts such as offerings of flowers in a temple. The idea is to reinforce the act of giving with the right thought every time the act is made, irrespective of any potential distractions. In most cases you would find the priests repeatedly chucking flowers at the deity, which, by this reasoning, would set up the wrong thoughts… Instead of an attitude of giving, chucking away flowers would generate an attitude of arrogance, a mentality of take-it-or-leave-it. Without adequate knowledge, offering flowers to the deity becomes a matter of helping the deity accumulate something – a kind of “fattening” the deity. The deity does not require accumulated flowers or gold or what have you. In this there is complete lack of knowledge, or negative knowledge, or avidya in Sanskrit. This defeats the very purpose of worship.”
As usual Ronak had a way to combine cold logic with age-old observances. He demolished unthinking ritualism and found deeper meaning in traditional rites.
Appeared in "The Hindu", Kochi, May 01, 2003

Culture versus conversation

It was a particularly difficult day for me at work. I had made six visits to several of my clients, and at the end, I had achieved nothing. I reflected my days in the US where I was in Insurance sales for nearly two years.

It seemed that the difficulty a salesperson faces here in India is of a different nature when compared to the west. The uncertainly that dogs you here in on account of people going back on their words for no apparent reason. Over there it is different. When things are going well and clients promise to buy, there is certainty that you will close a sale very soon.

I am not suggesting that people there are more honest and that they never go back on their words etc. They do. The point is they have a reason for what they do; what appeared as a great sales prospect is a non-starter because of a sudden change in the market condition, uncertainty in the economic outlook, presence of a new competitor who offers a better product etc. When the going gets bad you have to do something new, like make changes in the product you offer, or altogether wait for the current economic mood to change.

Here it is different. There are no trends. There are no macro issues. You simply have people who act differently from what they say!

That evening I couldn’t take my mind off the day’s disappointment. I shared it with Ronak, “Why do people go back on their words so unpredictably? Isn’t it better if they do not, in the first place, promise you at all?”

“Are you sure they agreed in the first place?”

“Yes.”

How do you know?”

“Obviously through what they say.”

“Did they unambiguously agree to buy from you?”

“Yes, they did.”

“My friend, I suspect they did not.”

“Well, I have only what they tell me to go by.”

“Interesting. You have to use other means of knowing besides what you hear.”

“What do you mean?”

“Culture.”

“You are assuming that agreements can be worked out through a single conversation alone. It’s more complex. Agreements here are culturally formed.”

“I don’t understand.”

He explained, “Agreements are not formed through a simple process of conversation, but through a complex process of culturally defined process of acceptance.”

“What complex process are you talking about?”

“As I said, cultural process of mutual acceptance.”

“What? That is no excuse to go back on a word.”

“A word is a contract. In older cultures like ours, contracts have less meaning. Something else has more meaning.”

“What is this something else?”

“Whether you are being accepted as a person by the group.”

“Ron, this is gibberish. Either you give a word or not. And that is it. And if you do, stick to it.”

“That’s a western masculine way to look at human interactions.”

“What? I really do not understand you.”

“If a person were to honour his own word it comes not out a conversational agreement with you but through an overall acceptance of the person. Viewed this way, you do agreeable things to a person, including enter into a mutually beneficial arrangement of buying and selling, because you accept and respect the person, not because you have given him a word.”

“But why did you mention the thing about “masculine”?

“Just ask yourself. Do hard-nosed contracts work with your wife?”

Suddenly I was beginning to see what Ron was saying. I said, “Very interesting, Ron, They never do.”

“Now, my friend, you are beginning to see. What really works with your wife?”

“Certainly not cut-and-dry listing of things.”

We paused and I continued, “I-do-this-you-do-this listing of things certainly do not work with my wife.”

“Then what works?”

“I suppose a more leisurely and lingering protocol of to-and-fro that finally gets both to do things for each other.”

“Extremely well said, my dear friend.” He said.

“Now let me propose to you that for the same reason, our countrymen appear less constitutional.”

“I see the connection, a statement of mutual agreement, and that includes the constitution, is only a parchment of paper for most without any cultural connection to it.”

“Once again very well stated, my friend.”

I smiled in satisfaction.

He went on… “For the same reason, we take more time to come to befriend a stranger.”

“I see what you are saying, I said understandingly, “When you talk to a new guy, you are less concerned about what he or she is saying than with the an internal murmur for checking out cultural congruity. And that takes time.”

“Absolutely.”

In seeing the bigger picture my selling disappointments vaporised into nothingness.

Eastern Manager

“Recently Ronak Gusty lent me a book to read. Inside were some loose sheets covered by hasty strokes of a smudgy pen. One look and I knew that was his handwriting. At first I thought I had no business to read them, but curiosity prevailed. When I confessed my crime, he said indifferently. "Well, it's for everybody." This time again I take liberty with Ron. Without his permission I reproduce his article, to which I know he will be just as indifferent.”

The other day I learnt a few lessons on management. It was from the most unexpected source: a bureaucrat. Yes, a bureaucrat.
You may call what I learnt a new paradigm, an old paradigm in a new bottle. Labels are unimportant. The thing is, it made lot of sense.
She works for the government and is a public utilities manager. She had just been through a strike by her staff – a nerve-wrecking experience by any yardstick: size of the workforce, complexity of issues involved, and multiplicity of stakeholders in the entire affair. Finally, the strike ended and everybody was back to work. With all the piled up work she was busy helping her staff clear it all up when I met her.
Though exhausted with the events of the past several days, she was in an unusually good mental tone. And this, I came to realise, was reflected in her views on the strike. She said that the strike was a legitimate expression of the pathetic service conditions of a section of her staff. This was only one side of the story. She was also of the view that the management of the public utilities had to take a no-nonsense stand and press in outside help, or shuffle around job responsibilities to help maintain a skeletal service. She had to contend with an angry public who, she told me, were also right when viewed from their angle. There were the worker unions, often with differing views amongst themselves, who all seemed to talk sense. Everybody seemed to be right.
I asked her “If everybody was right who was wrong? She had no answer. Apparently there were none. She had not framed her issues in dichotomous terms of right and wrong. As a management consultant looking for exactitude, all this seemed ambiguous and messy to me. But the proof of the pudding was eating it. She had been enormously effective. The jurisdiction under her control had the least negatives during the strike by many accounts -- untoward incidents, disruption of emergency services, quantum of unattended work at the end of the strike, extra time required of her bosses to help her in operational fire fighting etc. etc. The strike had been surprisingly harmonious. Was it a Japanese style protest or a Japanese style management response or both? I wondered. Indeed, there was something to learn from her.
I probed her further. I asked her what management principles she followed. She told me that she had not consciously followed any one of them. On pressing further, she reflected upon her management style and came up with two points. She told me that she learnt a lot during her MBA and felt a deep gratitude for the multitude of teachers and thinkers who moulded her. But there was no one theory or approach that suited her well enough. She developed her own unique style.
As best as words can convey, I have tried to encapsulate the two points: a) Focus on the job at hand with the minimum of the self and b) deal with other organisation members with a healthy emotional tone.

Focus on the job at hand with the minimum of the self: By this she meant that a true manager should concentrate on results and not be bogged down by the pettiness of the self. This had given her enormous flexibility in sourcing help from the right quarters without considerations of whose help she was seeking, who would get credit, who would approve of her actions, what would the bosses think, would the credit go to oneself etc. etc. Procedures and protocols did not quite matter. Her innate sense of what was right and wrong led her actions.
In some sense, she was talking about empowerment. Empowerment yes, but without making it a conscious technique that could be switched on and off at will like a machine – something which was more innate, enduring, and part of her. That gave her integrity, something that would be lacking in a mere “technique robot”.

Deal with a healthy emotional tone: This was more difficult for me to understand. She was not tempting her people with carrots of increments, promotions and free vacations. Her service rules did not permit these luxuries. In any case, she thought that most of the time carrots led to pettiness of the self. She had to motivate her employees at a more ethereal level, at a level of emotions. I got the impression that she was exercising the nurturing aspect of her personality, which came naturally to her. I wondered whether this had anything to do with her gender. In some ways, it would be correct to say that she was not motivating them. She was simply being with them. Through overuse and misuse, the word ‘motivating’ has connotations of covert intentions, thanks to behavioural psychology. The same healthy emotional tone she maintained towards those who worked with her and who happened to be higher up in the hierarchy.
I had one last question, “How do you practise all this?” Though she had no direct answer, I think I figured out what she was trying to say. It was “detached involvement.” It was some kind of a higher level concern and a lower level indifference. I knew I was treading onto things more philosophical (or spiritual?) and less managerial! I felt a little ashamed that I had to separate the two. If I did not, I will be vulnerable to self-chastisement of irrationality. After all I was carrying the baggage of the “rationality paradigm” as an MBA and a management consultant.
I had to admit to myself that there was much to learn from her. Seriously, I was a lot wiser after meeting her. I realised that just as it was difficult to practise her philosophy, it was important to encapsulate the management principles she practised for everyone’s benefit. Any takers?
Many many thoughts passed through my mind - unconnected superficially, but convergent in a deep personal way.

The eastern cultures are lunar in nature. The dominant management thought in India should necessarily include the sacred element along with the secular-rational. The western paradigm overemphasising the rational to the exclusion of the other half is a huge misfit in our cultural milieu.

It takes lot of guts to practise the paradigm – some form of internal courage. It is a lonely pursuit driven from within.

The paradigm has a strong social angle to it. That is plain and simple concern – a deep feeling for the well being of others. It is not sentimental altruism. The concern envelops the self and others.

The emotional tone is difficult to capture and explain. But once understood, it is a powerful motivating tool - more powerful than free vacations and increments. I also realised that they cannot be converted to a body of techniques. Conversion of emotional levers into techniques would perhaps be equivalent to vulgarising them and they might turn out to be worse than neutral non-emotionality. Applied manipulatively, they may become excellent tools for the practice of double standards and duplicity.

There is virtue in ambiguity if it accompanies holistic understanding. If such understanding leads to correct decision making and actions, long live ambiguity!

Don’t we need to introduce our MBAs to basic issues of human strivings and human aspirations to understand oneself and others – not compartmentalised study a la university style? But something else -- something that will strengthen our students’ internal guts, aesthetics and the sense of quality for managing people and resources.

Paradoxically, is the era of charismatic leadership dead?

How does one balance the female yin and the male yang? Can management thought benefit from some excellent gender studies in recent years, a sample of which from UK I had chanced to lay my hands upon the other day?

I had my brains full, there was helluva lot to explore, reflect, tease out, painstakingly elaborate, learn and, before everything, unlearn!

An earlier version appeared in "PTI Feature", New Delhi, Vol: XVIII (26)-2001, June 30, 2001

Knowing: Its Different Shades of Meaning

It was again one of those tête-à-tête with Ronak Gusty. This time, the discussion was on the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Ronak had just handed over me a complimentary copy of his latest book. In appreciation I held the book reverently, looked all over it and read its front and back covers. A few years ago I would have been jealous of him, but today I only thought how lucky I have been to have him for a friend!
"Congratulations, Ron," I said earnestly as I randomly opened a page and read aloud what caught my attention,
"…human progress meant knowledge exploding and wisdom imploding."
It did not seem much of a statement to me, and I said casually, "Well, that sounds like information explosion."
"This is something different."
"What is different?"
"The book's statement is different from yours." He said flatly.
I knew better than to argue with Ron, and was cautious, "Well, it appears that your book talks in a similar vein."
He said, "Well, what it said was, quote, "Human progress means knowledge expanding and wisdom imploding" unquote."
I realised something was amiss. He was talking about the distinction between knowledge and wisdom… one exploding and another imploding. And here I was, chipping in my two paise worth. Perhaps I was overly taken in by my nephew who was doing an undergraduate programme in Information Technology. He had, just the other day, eloquently outlined the difference between information and knowledge, something he had learnt in his classroom… Information consists of cold facts, knowledge is processed information. Information is what is available before analysis, knowledge is the outcome of analysis... and on and on. His speech was punctuated with catch phrases that dance on the lips of every young cyber enthusiast these days.
I wondered whether I too, smitten by the technology bug, was romancing back into youthfulness of the cyber variety, with beaten phrases such as 'information explosion' that meant everything, and yet nothing?
And alas, Ronak's would have nothing to tell me if I were to only showcase such regressive behaviour.
As if reading my mind he continued, "Most people seem to understand the difference between information and knowledge. Here the question is, what is knowledge and what is wisdom?"
"Yeah, sure. How did you work that out?" I asked
He said, "I think the distinction can be worked out best by an example. Let's say you are a Speleologist."
"Speleologist? An expert on caves," I said not able to hide my eagerness.
"Right. And, suppose you are the best on the subject in the entire world. Even if you were to be blindfolded and taken to some prehistoric caves in Timbuktu which were meant to help observe the movement of invading enemies, or the sacred caves in Tibet where seekers sat for ions in search of Nirvana, you are likely to know, how they came to be built, when, under what circumstances, or the means to find out whether it is safe to enter them now and so on. That is knowledge."
"In other words, all about caves, their structure, function and history… or even how caves age over time," I said eagerly.
"Yes, I think that pretty much sums up what knowledge means. You have, in fact, formally set the limits for knowledge." Ronak said with appreciation.
"What then could wisdom mean to a Speleologist?" I asked
He said cautiously, "A lot of things, I suppose. But, you cannot establish a limit of what constitutes wisdom."
I knew where he was going and could hardly contain my enthusiasm, and said, "In the case of knowledge, you could set its limits in terms of structure and function, or present and past etc. You cannot say that with respect to the limits of wisdom! Very interesting."
"So that forms the first distinction. Knowledge has limits, and wisdom, none," he said matter-of-factly.
"Does your book say anything like that?"
"Yes, it does say that in passing."
"Now what is this exploding and imploding?" I asked
He continued after a pause, "I think it pretty much follows. Exploding knowledge connotes multiplying of analytically-consistent understanding of things around us. But imploding wisdom means, some kind of collapse of the understanding to fewer elements.
"In other words, some kind of synthesis?" I said.
In a rare display of appreciation, he lightly banged his fist on the table and said, "Precisely, synthesis of several elements into one, wherein the significance is deeply felt to a heightened level."
"How would that relate to the caves, that is your speleology?"
"The synthesis can take place at various levels. At the lowest level of the synthesis, you would find out what the caves in Timbuktu have in common with the ones in Tibet. From that, you would come to the question 'What is common between those built for observing enemy movements, and those meant for seeking Nirvana?" The answers to these questions are of "synthesis" nature.
"You said synthesis could take place at various levels. What would be the next higher one?"
"Say, a question on architecture could synthesise the two locations at a higher level. You could perhaps ask a question such as, 'By studying the caves can you draw parallels between the architecture styles (which includes that of the caves, buildings, towns and so on of the period) at Timbuktu and Tibet?'"
I tempted him further, "Very interesting. And, at an even higher level?"
Ron thought for a moment and said, "It could be anything. Say, the question, "do the caves parallel social practices at the two places?" could throw in answers at an even higher level of synthesis."
"Excellent. I think you have a greater canvas to work at higher levels of synthesis."
"Right. At higher levels, there is a greater canvas to work with", he repeated my phrase, "…and on finding out the truth, you'd find a narrowing of differences, or an inward movement, a collapse of the peripheral to the centre, and a sense of "aha, the world is after all not too different, whether it's Timbuktu or Tibet." That is implosion of wisdom!"
As on other occasions with Ron, I came away intellectually wired up and illumined!

Appreared in “The Hindu", Kochi, Oct 08, 2001

Long and Short Term Thinking

We were returning by bus after attending the marriage of a common friend when Ron said with disappointment, "Our society has a defective vision. It's either too short-sighted or too long-sighted."
You had to be alert while talking to Ronak Gusty. Otherwise, you would slip into a position of logical inconsistency from which no escape routes exist. Towards the end of our journey, alertness was about the last descriptor that could characterise my state of mind.
He sensed my mood and nothing more was said. Soon I slept off, to the gurgling noises of the engine that had a method in its rhythmlessness.
When I woke up to a series of convulsions the bus had gone into -- perhaps over an overzealous rumble strip -- Ron was still pensive. His furrowed eyebrows had the same unfinished, weary look. I knew that he was still thinking of long-term and short-term, society’s thinking and the rest of it!
Now I that I felt like talking to Ron, I ventured, "I just dozed off. What were you talking about?”
"Since morning, I have been thinking of our culture carrying the twin load of two extreme forms of thinking: Eternity Thinking and Patchwork Thinking.”
“But you mentioned something of long term and short term thinking a little while ago.”
“Well, yes, ultra long and ultra short.”
I wasn’t thinking fast enough. “Wait a minute. What… ”
He continued, “My long term is about being immobilisingly eternal in thinking, and my short term… being obscenely patchworkly.”
I said, “Oh… I see what you mean. But…”
He looked at me, neither too eager, nor dismissive.
“But you are twisting the idea of eternal,” I said boldly.
“Sure. That is exactly the point. My complaint about our society is just that, twisting the idea of eternity,” Ronak countered.
“Eternal is an idea that is applied to things that are permanent, like truth and beauty, God, natural order, and divine justice.”
“Precisely. In other words, to things sacred. But it is precisely this idea of eternity that we apply to ourselves when we are beset with not-so-sacred situations… situations such as when we are shamed to powerlessness in bribing our way through petty favours, or when debilitated by the menacing sirens of white Ambassador cars.”
“I don’t see how you can apply ” I could not conceal myself, “your idea of eternity to corruption and excessive state power.”
“Eternal thinking produces a kind of avoidance mechanism. This allows us to cope with life lying down. We are happy to eternally wait… wait for God or something else to save us from the morass. Or, we are waiting for the other person to make the first move.”
“You are being unfair. Nobody consciously waits eternally.”
“Again, right on the dot. There is no conscious waiting. Other the other hand, there is an unconscious waiting, a waiting that arises from an unconscious overall acceptance of “eternity taking care of things.” Even corruption is too holy to be messed around with!”
“Oh…”
He continued, “In this “eternity mode of thinking”, the immediate does not bother us. Patience becomes a burden and is a result of a) lack of courage to attempt fashioning one’s future, and b) sheer inability to act.”
“I think I see what you are saying,” I replied.
Ron looked at me with satisfaction.
"What about short-sightedness?” I asked.
He said, "That’s the other extreme, what I call, the patchwork mentality, for lack of a better term.”
“What about it?” I asked.
“Some kind of unholy hurry to get done with the thing you are doing.”
“Like?”
Anything. Just look at the way we eat, the way we use the telephone, the manner in which we teach our children at school. Everything… Even the way we make love… Everything is done as if tomorrow does not exist."
"Interesting. But, Ron, culturally we are never known for speed.”
“Well, you need to make a distinction between impatiently reacting to something on the one hand, and completing tasks satisfactorily on the other.”
That was typical of Ronak Gusty, dissecting and dividing ideas and creating slots in to one of which he would shove what you have just said. Earlier, this used to offend me as I thought that it was a way for him to put me in place, literally! Not any more. There was a way for him to patiently separate out the weft and warp of conventional wisdom, and reweave them into something far more elegant, useful and enduring.
I have seen him being ruthless with not just others’ ideas, but also with his own, which he would have held valid until recently, before having rethought through.
He continued “This unholy hurry, or impatient reaction, forces us retract from our words and deeds far too often. Nothing seems to come right the first time round.”
I got a sense of how Ron was thinking and said, “Like pressing the wrong numbers on the phone dialler?” I said confidently.
“Right, my friend, right on the dot.”
I was reminded of a report I had read recently. It said that in a medium size, average-performing Indian office, seventy percent of the time is spent “re-specifying, re-establishing, correcting what has already been done by someone else, paying for the mistakes done through previous tinkering, searching for things that are misplaced etc.” All these had their genesis, the report pointed out, in short-term solution seeking.
I mentioned to Ron about this report and he was thrilled.
“Yes exactly, that is the point.”
Then he shared a story he once read in the Wall Streets Journal. It seems that, in the 1990s, when US auto maker, General Motors shifted their head office from a downtown Detroit office to a smart building in the suburbs, they has planned the shift over a period of five years! They simply did not want anything to be missed out. Even the Post-it notes of the employees were too important to be missed out.”
“Incredible.” That’s all I could say.
“Imagine our own Tatas shifting from Bombay House. Who wouldn’t laugh if they were to take five years to shift,” Ron said gleefully.
By now I knew what he meant by short-term thinking and added my two paise bit, “Even five days will be too much. After all, what is shifting an office? You call in a few healthy-bodied guys and ask them to pack and carry the stuff over to the new place. It’s just a week-end job.”
“Right,” he said.
“You could save precious weekdays for more important things!”
“Like shouting down orders the umpteenth time, re-re-repeating your travel plans to the travel agent, thinking of patchwork tactics to solve the next most urgent problem awaiting you, or devising means to appear busy,” Ron said light-heartedly.

Appeared in "The Hindu", Kochi, Dec 17, 2002

Majoritism

It was years back. Ronak Gusty had only recently bought an apartment in an residential building and moved to a major Indian City. Having been used to a certain professionalism in the affairs of his Mumbai apartment, he was expecting a modicum of the same here in our city too. But presto, he was in for a rude surprise when he actually started living here. The builder of the complex apparently had several unsold apartments and held the power of attorney to act on behalf of many others. All that added up to give him a majority status in the Association meetings. My friend and his friends who held "just one share each" felt constrained to even air their views.
"So what do you expect in a depressed real estate market, Ron. Everywhere in the country it is the same," I suggested, "On top of that, there are many moneyed fellows who invest here and leave the affairs of their vacant apartments to the builder."
"That's fine," he told me and added, "But what bothers me is this excessive romance with the notion of majority."
"Excessive romance with the notion of majority?" I asked.
"Yes, it seemed that the man had convinced everyone there that he could do almost anything with his majority! There seemed no voice for what should be right and wrong. All that mattered was who had the majority."
That struck a note of familiarity in me. Just the other day, I had read a political commentator airing his views on majoritism. He called it the generation and acceptance of ideas based exclusively on what the majority thought. What was of consequence was the brute strength behind an idea, and not what we, as individuals, thought as right and wrong. In such an environment, what mattered was noise more than substance, propaganda more than fair governance, rabble rousing more than constitutionally valid protests, quotation after quotation more than what the speaker thought of an issue… Perhaps what he saw and observed in his apartment complex was a sign of the present political -- or perhaps even the intellectual -- climate of our nation. There was no place for the individual in such a scheme. Only collections of individuals mattered.
Occasions that demand expression of individual thinking and majority thinking are different. A person should be able to speak out what he or she thinks is important irrespective of whether the majority agrees with that or not. Majoritism opposed the ultimate unit in all political thought… the individual. It abrogated individual right to the some propagandist idea of majority benefit, and individual responsibility to the whims of the ruling or populist class. The idea of majority was never meant to be so sweeping, nay, so vulgar, he averred.
This set me thinking. The idea of majority can be vulgarised in other ways too.
Ron recalled an incident when he was working in a corporate environment several years ago. The company had recruited four new MBA summer trainees in their region. Being an experienced manager in middle management, Ron was given the role of directing the young men. They had scheduled to meet amongst them one evening to prepare for their presentations with the Executive Council. That morning one of them, for some genuine reason, had called in saying that he would be coming in late. Now, one of the other three (Ron remembered his name as Hari) wanted to have the evening meeting advanced to noon. From what Ron told me, I conjure up a conversation that must have taken place.
Ron overhears Hari say, "Hey, what the hell. He is not present. So what? We have the majority. We can decide."
Ron cannot tolerate such thinking in his organisation.
He shouts from the corner, "Hey, that’s not right. You four guys unanimously agreed that you are meeting at five this evening. Now how can the three, without the fourth guy, change that decision.”
Hari says, “Something has come up suddenly.”
Ron replies, “So what. The four of you need to unanimously decide on advancing the meeting."
Hari says, "I am just suggesting a democratic decision."
"Democratic decision? Or tyranny of the majority?”
“But…”
Ron continues, “Well, just think of it, Hari, each has its place… Unanimity, majority and…taking an independent position."
"The thing is…" Hari tries to justify his position.
Ron is in a hurry to get on with his work "Let's not argue here. Just think about it. Depending upon the context, you must seek a majority decision, a unanimous decision or and independent, individual, bold decision."
He thinks for a moment.
Ron is impatient and says, "Could we discuss this later?"
Next morning the fellow goes up to Ronak Gusty. Hari is more relaxed and tells his that he agrees that there is more to democracy than simply, yes, majoritism.
Ron now has another disciple!

Appeared in "PTI Feature", New Delhi, PF-120/ 2001

”Other” Orientation

Recently I came across an interesting description of Post Modernism as the worldview within which one would not attempt to convert -- militarily, economically, sexually, or through any other covert or overt means -- to one's own side, someone belonging to a different culture. Post Modernist viewpoint is so expansive that it accommodates no perception of threat by the "other" to the universality of one's own beliefs. Here every individual acts with a certain level of conviction over his or her affairs. If required, the rationale for one's action may be stated without any fear of reprisal. At the same time, the person is able to see others' contexts for their own convictions and actions. A person with Post Modernistic outlook would be open enough to let one's conviction be modified when fresh inputs come in.
Thinking about this I realised that this required a high level of intellectual and social maturity for it to work. There has to be a commitment to eschewal of violence -- physical or otherwise -- and the rule of law. There has to be a willingness to listen. The dominant view of society has to be sufficiently broad enough to accommodate creative impulses and unconventional behaviour by some of its members. There has to be a high level of self-worth within individuals so that one is willing to have one's worldview challenged and creatively threatened by others. All tall demands!
When I discussed this with Ronak Gusty he was gleeful.
"Yeah, yeah, this is it. That's a nice way describe Post Modernism. A non-threatening Other Orientation! Wow. It's no coincidence that this is like what I always had in mind when it came to the relationship of companies towards its customers."
"There you go, why do you now talk about companies and customers."
"I see a connection. This idea of Other Orientation goes to the root of modern Market Economics."
"Ron, culture and commerce are two different things."
"My friend, you are not casting your mind far enough. Try and look for patterns, and please do not get lost in the details."
"Now, there again! What exactly do you mean?" I said in exasperation.
"Culture and commerce are intertwined in many ways. Take the example of women working in factories. Our culture does not quite approve of women being sent away from home in the night! That's until recently… I know there was a move to change the law. Similarly there are a lot of cultural matters that influence the way organisations are run; from how common holidays are chosen to dress code in the factories."
"Ron, all that is okay. I don't say culture or religion does not influence the way holidays are fixed! But I don't see the connection between this elegant cultural construct called Other Orientation and commerce."
"My friend, you will eat your words, when you understand what I have in mind." Today Ron was not his usual stoic self. He was in a teasing mood, and willing to let his inner confidence show up in his demeanour.
"Well…"
"In the past, businesses simply came out with products and services which they sold to their customers for a price. Companies ensured that in this process they adopted all means at their command to financially reward its owners or shareholders. In this scheme, roles were clearly understood. So long as you followed the law and ensured sufficient economic returns everything was fine."
"So how is it different now?" I asked
In a modern Market Economy, it is much more than passing a few bucks from the customers to the shareholder with a cut retained by the management. For Market Economics to work, those involved with businesses need to have a strong Other Orientation. You have stakeholders, customers, employees, society, suppliers, bankers etc. etc. who are your stakeholders. Each group would consist of heterogeneous individuals and subgroups. To properly accommodate these diverse constituents you need to understand and accommodate their viewpoints and legitimate needs. This requires a flexible world view. In other words, a healthy Other Orientation!"
"Excellent, I think I kind of see the direction of your argument. But tell me how does that impact the common man who is only looking for a better life out of all these free market mumbo-jumbo?"
"The Other Orientation is a simple yet powerful social tool for making our lives easier. Let me give you an example where this lacked miserably. I remember once going to one of the nationalised bank in a major city in India, located centrally in the market area. The bank had thousands of savings bank account holders and there were several counters to service them. Here I remember that there were these cardboard placards hanging over the metallic mesh that separated the customers from the desk staff. These placards, with the exception of just one, were turned towards the bank staff! Their position was dictated by convenience to the bank employees. Customers would come to the savings bank counters and ask around those in the queues to find the right counter! The din and confusion never bothered the bank staff. If only they had displayed some measure of Other Orientation!"
"But that kind of thing you find everywhere," I countered.
"Precisely. That is the point. The most difficult things to change are those that are ubiquitous. Those right under your nose escape attention."
"One can come up with several examples like that." Now I understood how Other Orientation would influence our day-to-day lives. Many examples came to mind, and I continued, "If fact, why blame the commercial banks. Look how the Reserve Bank came out with a 500-rupee note that looked exactly like the 100-rupee note. Or the one-rupee coins. They come in so many shapes and sizes that you are not sure which one to use in which telephones!"
"Yes, " Ron said, "Other Orientation is not a matter for banks alone. It is for everyone. Whichever way you look at it, whether as a philosophy for business organisations, or as a matter of operational principle in your next-door bank, the idea is the same."
"I think you have a point. There are certain things that are deeply ingrained with us that need to be modified for making our mundane lives easier, and also for sophisticated social systems, such as free-market economics, to work."
"That is it. The idea cuts across a whole lot of different areas. Whether we are talking of culture or commerce, thought or action, contemporary living requires its own characteristic worldview," Ron said with satisfaction.

"The Hindu", Kochi, July 16, 2001

Slogans and Lies

In India, though the slogan, "Unity in Diversity", has spread widely among its people through a deluge of one-liners in government bumphs, it largely remains what it is. A slogan. It has the same characteristics as the utterance of the politician and the double speak of the bureaucrat -- an empty shell, a sham, a sleight of tongue. The loftier and pithier the slogan, the more obscene it sounds over the years. On that count, "Unity in Diversity" may only be second in obscenity to "Brothers and Sisters…!"
What degeneration of words and images!
When I suggested this phenomenon to a group of academics from the university, the disagreement was choral. One of them suggested that by such "acts of cynical thinking and convoluted criticism", many "educated" persons like me were doing disservice to the nation.
On returning home I thought over the afternoon's discussion. Why was there such a strong opposition to what I thought was so obvious? Why did my colleague whom I respect for his scholarship stay short of declaring me a traitor?
I decided to discuss this with my friend, Ronak Gusty. As always his ability to grasp what I said was far greater than my ability to explain.
"It's simple," he said, "For the majority of people it is a feel good show-piece idea that is meant to result in no true action."
"What?" I asked.
"It is important for most people to feel good about the symbols that they live with," he declared.
"Oh, I kind of see what you are saying."
"Here the slogan is the symbol. It is supposed to represent, in however small a measure, the real person in each of us. Slogans, much like wearing a certain brand of shirt or driving a certain model of a car, are supposed to convey who and what we are. Here they treat epigrams as symbols, not as words that have inner meaning."
"In other words, by speaking out my thoughts, I was saying that they are chasing symbols that have no substance."
"Yes, and that hurts those who think they are intellectually driven. For them, you are attacking their core belief patterns."
"I never meant to hurt them."
"But you did. You were saying that they were illogical."
I looked at him with confused.
"See, everybody agrees that an epigram such as this one is taken seriously by nobody, except the naïve among the grownups and the well-rehearsed school children."
"Oh!"
"Since it is not taken seriously, it should have no value."
"No value?"
"When you take an epigram seriously you are legitimising it, or giving value to it. In contrast, when you do not take it seriously, you are declaring it invalid."
"Okay. So?"
"Well, at the same time, they are ascribing some value to it some other way. So there is a conflict. You are exposing that conflict."
"By some other way, you mean in the symbolic sense?"
"Yes. If you ask them the question, 'Do you really think there is an intrinsic value in these messages?' in a moment of candour they would say 'No". At the same time they know that there is a feel-good aspect that endears such epigrams to their hearts."
"Very interesting. Kind of love-hate situation, eh?"
He nodded, "Emotions are mixed. And when you expose the anomaly, you are questioning their intellectual integrity. That is painful."
"Oh, I see how I hurt them. But then, you agree that there was truth in what I said."
"Yes, but truth you spoke out was unpalatable, that's all."
"But my colleagues are smart enough not to reject truth just because it is unpalatable."
"Well, that's not what I meant. At the conscious level, your colleagues did not realise that what you are saying is unpalatable truth. If it were obvious they would have agreed with you; but some truths are subtler. You need to go below the surface to understand them."
"Very interesting."
"Often you know something is wrong instinctively. And that was what you felt about the epigram. The same instinct was not apparently sensed by others to the same extent. Hence they disagreed with you. They also were not willing to take pains to find out why you said what you said. They were too impatient and emotionally involved with the slogan that they had no time or inclination to get to the depth of what you said."
I took leave of Ron, with clarity in my head and gratitude in my heart. You do not often come by people like Ron. And a friend like him? …Oh, he's too precious and rare.

"The Hindu", Kochi, Aug 13, 2001