A Logic for Compensation Package

Introduction

The terror strikes on Mumbai has no doubt shaken the conscience of the nation. Our insecurity, vulnerability and level of reaction preparedness has left everyone wondering whether they had made the right choice in thrusting power in the hands of individuals who appear so self-obsessed in using the national property for personal benefit. Well the tragedy of self - obsession did not stop with the death of terrorists, but it went further when each politician went on announcing compensation packages for the brave officers. From where did they get so much money from? Then why these people were not taxed under the IT Act? And if its the public money they were donating, who granted them the authoirity to do so? And most importantly how did they arrive at the number they wish to grant? All this brings out a gaping hole in the compensation policy and therefore the motivation for this article. 

I want to give a simplistic mathematical model that will not only guide the politicians/leaders in arriving at a number that shall be in accordance with the action of the awardee but also make the package a transparent property that can be scrutinized logically by the public they represent. This way there is an enhancement of accountability and lucidity is induced in the compensation package system. 

Assumptions and scope

The model follows two primary assumptions. They are:

1- The operation involves the use of millitary or police personnel.

2- The awardee is killed in operation.

Variables identification

The falacy in the current compensation awarded by the Govt. or the politicians to be precise is that they are just a random amount spoken at the spur of the moment. So the intitial problem is to isolate and define some variables that must be borne in mind while awarding these compensation packages. I state them below:

1- Gain of operation [G]

This conatins two sub variables- the first sub - variable is the richest survivor at the end of operation. Well this is not to state that the poor need not be saved. Moreover while firing away the awardee will not be in a conscious position to determine and judge the economic state of the ones he will be saving. But to just give a tangible reward for his bravery, the richest survivor of the operation is taken to determine the value of the operation. I argue and state that half of the annual income of the richest survior must be awarded to honour the gallant personnel. This is because I have taken an implicit assumption that the money shall be deducted from the income of the richest survivor. So one must leave the survivor with some amount too. 

The second sub variable is the costliest property saved after the operation. This is self explanatory. If its a partially damaged building then property saved equals the complete property cost in current market price less the damaged part of the same. If its undamaged single undivided property, I argue the complete property price must be awarded. The logic is that the gallantry of the awardee has stopped the owner of the property from bearing renovation cost of the property to total loss of the same.

Hence on a whole it can be stated that compensation awarded is directly proportional to the gain in operation.

2- Time [T]

The third variable is "time of operation". Needless to say the higher the time of operation, the more the resources used and more liklihood of damage to life and property. According to experts, the response to an attack must be within 30 mins of the attack. Any reaction time that is greater than these stipulated 30 mins provides a double advantage to the attacker namely aiding in planning and grabbing strategic positions for engagement. Hence compensation package awarded must be invesely proportional to the square of time spent in operation. 

3- Family [F]

Last but not the least the survivors of the family of the awardee must be taken into account. They may have lost a family member who was an earning member. So the last drawn annual income of the slain personnel must be given  aggregated to the number of years left till another member of the family (preferably the child irrespective of sex) is able to support the family after completion of education. Usually this age can be taken as 25 years (taking cue from the ancient Ashrama stage that puts Bramhacharya ashram meant for education till age of 25 years). The logic is not to allow the standard of the family to depreciate in absence of the earning member. 

Mathematically speaking

Compensation is represented as C

1- C is directly propertional to G 

=> C is directly propertional to [ i/2 + (p - d)]; where i = the total income of the costliest survivor, p = total cost of property in current market price, d = damaged cost of property in current market price

2- C is inversely propertional to T (2) [ read it as T squared]

3- C is directly propertional to F

But F = (25 -n) x; where n = the current age of the eldest born, x = the annual income of the deceased at the time of death.

=> C is directly proportional to (25 - n) x

Therefore the final equation is: C = k [2p-2d+i][x(25-n)/t(2)]; k = constant

The constant k if analyzed in terms of units comes as time/Rs. It means the amount of time that is spent to generate a rupee in this country. So it can be argued that constant k = GDP  growth rate of the nation at the time of operation. 

Conclusion

A democracy survives when people are taken into confidence by the political class to win confidence. Hence a rational expnditure structure is a must for one is handling public money. So this is a small effort in my part to devise a model for compensation packages that our bravehearts so truly deserve. Criticisms to improve the model are welcome. 

Some Models for Dowry Calculation

Background

This thought came while I was busy refuting a blogger whom I had met in the cyberspace through a common friend. She had written something about matrimonial ads and had bashed up mankind very unkindly through politically correct language. Added to that were some psychopaths who had boosted up her ego without a critical thought on her writting and made her believe that she was championing the cause of women. Well what followed in a nutshell was that I engaged myself in a debate with her and when she saw the ground beneath her slipping, she gave a few lectures to me on humilty and respect and vanished away with a huff! Well insecure people can never sell secure ideas. 

Anyway I dedicate this piece of writing to that very individual who provided the much in demand food for thought for these models to germinate in my cerebral space. 

Approach 1- An econometric model for dowry calculation

Problem definition: Marriage can be defined as a transaction of goods, services and emotions between partners.

 

The variables for transaction and the means to measure them: Three variables I am taking for defining transactions - goods, services and emotions.

1- Emotions can be measured as EQ of each partners and a correlation of them can be entered in the model

2- Services can be measured as the "number of trips/month" to finalize the match. In affection marriages its usually very high since lot of convincing stuff to make the families agree has to take place

A note on affection marriage - The term affection marriage has been coined by me to define what is called as love marriage by the blind-in-love mortals. This is because these love marriages are the ones which provides the fodder for the numbers to swell up the divorce registers. My question is, "Can love end?" After lot of debates and arguments with self and critically observing such affairs (I mean that word!) I arrived at a conclusion - "That love can end if its done with a reason. Anything that is done with a reason ends with a reason." But love is reason-less. And hence what is prevalent before us is affection marriage in the garb of love marriage. I define affection marriage as a time bound emotional contract that builds up between two individuals for a tangible reason. 

3- Goods we can keep as a question. Rather we shall discover how much dowry one must pay to keep the marriage working.

4- This can be regressed against the "nember of years one wants to stay in the marriage" which can be measured as "anniversary".

 

Equation: Anniversary = y + EQ + no. of trips/month + Goods to be given ( y = intercept).

 

This way one can calculate the goods or dowry one has to give/take scientifically.

 

Approach 2- An alternative appraoch

This model is a different way to look at the problem of dowry.

 

Again keeping the same variables as defined previously.....

 1- Anniversary is directly proportional to higher correlation of EQ scores. - This is pretty logical I guess and no need of any explanation.

2- Anniversary is inversely proportional to service exchanged. Now service exchange is defined as no. of trips/month made by partners to satisfy families to agree to their union. Hence this leads to emotional drain and hence emotional loss. Many times they have to abandon their plans and an "affection marriage" fails to initiate. I want to clarify this more. It may happen that the partners may not marry at all to anyone in their lifetime resisting the resistance. But thats beyond the scope of the model. The assumption is the partners do eventually marry each other. It follows the success-only criterion.

3- Anniversary is directly proportional to goods or dowry given/taken. I take a more economic standpoint here. More the dowry got, more the spending/purchasing power of the husband for the wife and hence less percieving of the wife as an economic burden.

 

So the equation becomes: Anniversary = k X EQ X months/trip X goods

 

Facts abt equation (units): k = constant, EQ = no units, trip = measured in kms., goods = measured in Rs (lakhs), Anniversary = years

 

So k's unit is km/Rs (lakhs) (since year and month cancel each other !)

 

I define "k" as the "mile-age constant of a marriage"; and its implications I give below. 

 

Implications:

As one can see, if the denominator, that's goods, increases, the mileage constant decreases, i.e. the distance between the guy and girl (physical and assumed to be emotional) decreases with every extra rupee spent; it means the guy and the girl are ready to bear anything and stay on since a huge cost has been involved. So high dowry marriages are "stable", stability again being defined purely based on no. of years spent together. No taking into account of emotions.

 

Mile age constant has to be decreased for marriage to last - thats the thesis. So one more way  to decrease the "k" is to decrease number of trips. It happens if parents are cooperative and realize marriage is the business of two individuals and all they have the role is to felciliate the union. Hence dowry asked is decreased too. Such marriages are stable provided the EQ of the individuals have a high correlation and assumed not to change over time.

 

Societal implications of the current model:

1- A database of mile-age constants of all marriages in every community and caste can be made. This shall help us in calculating the dowry needed. Hence this shall fecilitate an advance planning by parents.

 

2- If it is an "affection-marriage", well the parents can actaully calculate the trade-off and hence based on the demand and desire can control the number of trips made by the parties for convincing them

 

3- The partners can actually calculate their years of togetherness and this shall motivate them to stay along and hence may increase the potential stability of marriage by making them submit to each other and hence understand each other better.

Approach 3- Dowry viewed as economic asset by the groom's family

Family A will get a bride from family B.

 

The dowry must be calculated based on the most sensitive expenditure of a family that will be affected on getting another girl. Hence according to me its food. Hence one must calculate the avg. monthly expenditure of food of Family A, say "x"

 

Marriage is nothing but can be viewed as transferring of one individual from one house to another permanently assuming the marital status to be infinite. Hence the monthly expenses on food for Family B can be calculated, say "y". Let the family mambers in this family be "a". So "y" can be leveraged on these family members for simplicity. So its "y/a" on the girl for share of expenditure.

 

Dowry is nothing but transferring this "y/a" from Family B to Family A aggregated to the number of years the marital bond lasts.

 

Now the life expectancy for men is 70 years in India (according to WHO report, 2006) and 67 for women. So marriage shall last till both the partners are alive and this is again assuming the bond is infinite and not broken by discord.

 

People marry in modern India at the age of 25 years minimum. So marriage lasts for 42 years.

 

Hence dowry to be paid = y/a X 12 X 42 rupees.

 

This is scientific way of determining again the dowry to be paid and has utility value rather than the show off value.

 

A Note and some concluding comments 

Dowry was never meant to be a contribution to the family's expenditure. Actually there is no justification of people asking such huge amounts. The incremental increase in family's expenses thanks to coming of a girl into its fold is very less compared to the wealth exchanged in name of dowry. Dowry is rather a show of power of individuals to society about the quality of life they are leading. Hence marriages are such expensive affairs. But if you look critically you shall see what we call marriage is actually chanting of a few mantrams and tying a knot. Throw in some new pairs of clothes for the couple. Its darn simple ceremony. Just blown into bits by the show-off. Personally I will love to marry in a court.

I am against dowry and so are many. But yet the system still exists. As a scientist, I love working with reality and not idealism . So refrain from judgements unlike my friend to whom I have dedicated this piece. 

 

The US Financial Crisis - How am I affected?

Well people this is a small attempt on my part to make the financial crisis going on rationally explainable to the common man. Trust me, none of us are immune to it. 

To start with lets remember the fundamental of business is transaction and is explained by the barter system which is nothing but exchanging goods needed and of utility value between two parties or persons. Now money is also a type of 'goods'. The importance of money lies in the fact that its utility value can be generalized across transactions i.e. it can be exchanged for all type of goods and commodities. Hence its utility value is highest. 

Now in the 'market' which is nothing but a contextual scenario where the transactions occur, the people (party 1) suddenly find that the type of goods produced by the firms (party 2) are not satisfactory and hence they do not give the money to the firms and take their goods in exchange. The people start hoarding the money for they do not trust the firms and their produce anymore. Therefore money (dollars here) slowly start vanishing from the market while number of commodities increase. The firms do all the gimmicks possible like giving heavy discounts and reducing the price but to no effect since the well informed consumers are pretty sure that the commodities are not worth exchanging for the money they have. Hence this lack of liquidity drives firms to closure. Now firms have also borrowed heavily from te investment banks which are nothing but financial sources for the firms. With the closure of firms, there is a loss of business and liquidity for these banks. Hence they too wind up business. 

Well what I wrote till now is the macro scenario. But how does it affect me and India in general? Well since everybody wants to save up and hoard money, the interest rates will go up. Hence loans will be given but with higher interest rates, since no one wants to part with money. So those of us who wants to buy a house or a vehicle will do better to wait for sometime in future. 

Because the currency of US is dollars and this is what is facing the crunch (putting little economical terms - the demand for dollar is high while supply is drastically low), its value appreciates with respect to other currencies; here we shall take our currency - rupee. Now if I buy something from US, I have to pay them in their currencies or dollars. Since more number of rupees equals one dollar now, I have to shell out more money. Hence imports will be hit badly since for the same quantity of imports, the nation has to shell out more money. On the other hand, exports will be non-profitable. Simple logic again - there is no demand of the commodities in US since people are interested in hoarding dollars than spending them freely for these commodities.

As I mentioned before, its better to stop buying houses and vehicles now, well the real estate business will be hit due to this decison of mine. And so is the automobile industry. TATA- Nano project may not be that badly hit for the customer segment its targetting can afford one lakh. But TATA may still face loss in aggregate in this project for it may not generate volumes thanks to the financial crisis. Software sector is one more sector that will be badly hit since most of the projects come from US. Since firms there are saving up by cutting costs and making calculated moves, no projects come to India and hence its psedo-employment for the professionals. Since there are no consumers, the operational activities of firms here will come down. This will result in lay-offs and loss of employement to many graduates being churned out of numerous colleges. I sometimes wonder why is education industry not tied up or affected by the financial crisis! Added to this, inflation is already at 12% in India. With no money flowing into pocket, how can one dream of buying the commodities despite the discounts and promotional offers? In a nutshell economy crashes, for we are too dependent on US. Industries which are independent like media, telecom and insurance will remain relatively unaffected. My Puja and Diwali expenditure has to reduce too sadly !

So when shall it end? Till all the loss making firms wind up and banks are left to finance only firms that will prosper. Then money flows in and people prioritise their demands and are ready to spend. Another way is if the US Federal Reserve (like our RBI) comes out and lends more money to the banks to enable them to lend out to these firms to save themselves. 

Till then all of us have to wait and watch and hope that  our leaders at Delhi do their level best to isolate our economy as far as possible from other countries. Complete isolation is not possible yet the sensitive sectors must be isolated. An internal market for software services ought to be developed and our industries should try to come up to offer a market for it. Hoping for the best !

Self - Orientation Model of Leadership - An alternative thought

Introduction

Well before I develop this model here, let me confess that I am writing it out as a bored individual who has been made to read up plenty of stuff in leadership since last three months and who found them all inefficient to explain and understand one individual whom I consider as an awesome leader - Sri Sathya Sai Baba. The trait theories are useless in explaining for Baba has all the traits identified and much more. The behavioral theories are of no use since we do not know the situation to predict the behavior and in Swami's case its highly complex. The situational theories were of little help since I never believe that situation determines a leader but a leader determines a situation. The latest fad - charismatic leadership is again of little value. Baba is charismatic but then what indeed is charishma? Is it not a way of doing things again - a part of behavioral group of theories? In my view charishma is just a subset of behaviors. All behaviors can quailify to be called as charismatic provided they have the right audience. But Baba appeals to all and evokes both kind of emotions and reactions in varieties of people -- positive and negative. So charishma fails too for it does not help distinguish the specific qualities that make people adore Him and hate Him. The same qualities do both the jobs.

So I percieve this as a gap in the literature for none of these theory is able to explain the leadership of such a personality as Sri Sathya Sai Baba. This is my attempt based on my experience and study of Him to devise a leadership model that explains His style of leadership. I name it The Self-Orientation Model Of Leadership.

The Theory

The primary thesis of this model is what I call a dynamic interchange between self-expansion and self-isolation. I define both the terms below.

Self-expansion

I define self expansion as an attribute that enables the leader to identify with the cognitive and affective state of his/her follower and hence make them feel one with him/her. In this state, the leader lives not for him/her, but for his/her followers. He/she completely identifies with the euphoria or suffering of the followers and sometimes may forget his/her own existence. The followers are nothing but an expanded being of the leader. For people who are unaware of Baba, may be comfortable connecting M.K.Gandhi while reading this. He practiced self-expansion religiously identifying himself with the rural population of India which was predominant pre-independence. Through self expansion he brought about a massive change in the image of the Congress party which was till then dominated by some individuals from elite class who had a misconception that their demands reflected the demands of the Indian people. 

Self-isolation

This attribute I define as the ability of the leader to isolate himself from being carried away by the emotions of his/her followers and maintaining his/her own identity. It may sound a bit out of place but I argue that this attribute is what helps leaders to sustain their influence. They do things not because followers want, but because they want. They are neither task centric or people centric but they are self-centric. It may not be confused with selfishness but rather may be understood as a sustained attempt to maintain one's own identity. In the mission of being people centric, often leaders become too mixed up in mundane crowd and lose their shine. These leaders who practice the self-orientation model, are neither people centric nor task centric. They do both simultaneously. They involve with the people to do the task and then they isolate themselves when the kill is being enjoyed. They are not party to it. 

This attribute of self-isolation is where many of the leaders failed or fail since:

1- Its human to enjoy the prize and be taken in by applause

2- They get involved with people too much to lose sight of further task. On the other hand a self-oriented leader is continuously on a plan for further conquests. He does not rest on laurels.

So its a continuous flip-flop between self expansion and self isolation and it is catalysed by a task or series of tasks. This flip flop helps such a leader to maintain his/her identity and hence sustained control and influence on his/her followers, since the later never lose sight of him/her that way. They never know what is coming next and they are always waiting while enjoying the present. Involvement in the present while hoping for the future are the characteristics of a follower of a self-oriented leader. This is why most often spiritual personalities are self-oriented leaders. This model I argue can be generalized to all spiritual leaders.

So can practice of this model make us spiritual? Thats another research question! Till then amen!

Leadership Lessons from A Road to Freedom - The Dandi March (1930)

Introduction

Mohandas K. Gandhi's Dandi March (March 12, 1930) had carved a niche for itself in the history of India's long struggle for freedom from the British Raj. It was an awakening of two different beings - the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed. The rulers realized that their hold on India has come to an end and its better to walk away gracefully while the Indians realized the strength of Self. Gandhiji wanted them to realize that freedom is nothing but a state of mind which fiercely listens to the conscience and conscience alone. On the 61st anniversary of our Independence, it is my humble endeavour to look at this event with a critical eye deriving the underlying meanings of the symbolic act.

The Dandi March - A Conceptual Overview

Gandhiji left his ashram with his followers on March 12th 1930 from Sabarmati in the outskirts of the city of Ahmedabad and marched approxmately 320 kms to arrive and break the Salt law at Dandi on April 6th 1930. It was the morning hours and Gandhiji took a bath in the sea and with his wet loin still clung to his body and his upper part drapped in a shawl, took a handful of salt from the shores of the Arabian Sea and proclaimed the end of British empire. The police arrived and arrested the men under Gandhiji, jails were filled to brim, yet the movement sparked a fire that ignited the souls of millions of men and women throughout India. The prescence of International Press added glamour to the event and the movement was recognized and known as far as America (which was important since India needed International solidarity for its struggle for independence).

Undeterred by the Government's effort in cutting his wings by the mass arrests of his supporters, Gandhiji decided to sieze the salt works of Dharesena. The Govt. moved into a rapid reaction by immediately arresting Gandhiji in the midnight of May 4th and 5th and by mid-morning lodged him in Yeravada Central Jail in Pune. However the movement started by "the half-naked fakir" did ignite India and Civil Disobedience became the norm of the citizens.

Leadership Insights

Looking critically, three major parameters of Gandhian leadership styles can be plucked from the above incident of historical significance. We will try to isolate them in this particular section from a series of counter questionings.

1- Why did Gandhiji select "salt" as an item for protest? Why not "textiles" as he did it in the Non-Cooperation movement of 1920? There is a huge significance in this choice of protest object. Gandhiji was trying to arouse India in this struggle for independence. And Congress has to be a National party and hence its activities must be able to touch every section of society residing in India irrespective of their economic, racial and social status. Salt served the purpose very well. It is the only thing used by the elite rich and the desperate poor, the Hindus (with their castes) and the Muslims (with their sections) in common. There was no brands of salt available then unlike today and hence it served as a common instrument to bind everyone in the nation. Textiles on the other hand were having various brands like the Bombay Dyeing, which was inaccessible to the India living in villages. By taking up the issue of salt, Gandhiji ensured the involvement (even if not active, at least attention) of ALL Indians. Hence the first leadership secret is affective unity of actors in your operational context. The operational context in the case of Gandhiji was India and he ensured the unity of it by his appropriate choice of instrument - salt.

2- The second obvious question is "why did Gandhiji march to Dandi?"He had so many rich and famous individuals like Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Motilal Nehru, Jawarharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. He could have borrowed any of their vehicles, gone to Dandi and broken the law. Precious time would have been saved too. Yet he marched. Marching according to me had two purposes - the oft quoted purpose of involvement with people at the grassroot which allowed them to identify with the leader. It gives the people a psychological access to the leader and breaks any inhibition and gives the leader a chance to influence the people in his ideology. The second important purpose of marching was attention capturing through dramatised action. A leader is percieved as a leader by the subordinates for he/she is believed to have powers and influence that is absent in them. A leader to remain a leader has to manage that impression of the followers without being decietful. Gandhiji was a master impression manager. Every action had an element of drama. The salt march was literally a war against an empire since it was aimed to break a major revenue providing law. And a war is fought with an army. Gandhi had to SHOW that to the international media and to the assembled authorities of the empire. Hence he marched as a lieutnant of his "army". Agreed his method of fighting was different from the conventional bloody games wars used to be, yet it was a WAR of a nation against another. It clearly demarcated India from the Empire and SHOWED the existence of TWO nations and not ONE to the International community. Grabbing attention - the Gandhi way - is unique. Even his passive non-violent resistance or Satyagraha was uniquely designed to be dramatised. Gandhiji understood that anything that is not natural is a drama and attracted attention. When a man is hit, its natural for him to fight or take recourse to flight. Satyagraha demolished the two alternatives. No fighting and no running away but rather dying if possible yet not relenting to the oppressor. It will attract anyone's attention!

3- The final leadership secret that can be isolated is empowerment through promotion of behavior as expected after the end of project operation. According to Gandhiji freedom never meant replacing one ruler with another. But it meant providing a sense of free will to the common man that ensures a safe and peaceful society. A democratic ruler takes into account this free will of people to frame laws to do the maximum good to maximum people. Thus the underlying principle is free - will. And Gandhiji wanted every citizen of India to exercise it. If one sees a merit in something, follow it, if not, chuck it. This is freedom. In a nutshell he was making people practice the Advaita Vedantic school of philosophy. As long as one recognises a law, it exists; and if one dis-recognizes it, it vanishes. Gandhiji was making the people bahave as if there was no law and hence actions must be guided by conscience. All his movements aimed at this end - to break Govt. laws by disrecognizing them. Hence it put the Govt. in a soup for there is no such "provision" like "disrecognition be treated as crime". It was a unique way to achieve freedom - Free the man - free the home - free the nation.

Summing up

The Gandhian leadership style from Dandi March can be summed up as "effecting an emotional bonding of people in a operational context by appropriate choosing of an unifying object of use leading to personal empowerment of the subordinate by giving scope to exercise the free will by personal involvement and dramatised action."

India was free after millions of sacrifices, people who never lived to enjoy the fruit of their labor. Lets understand their perspective of freedom and their motive of fighting for it. Its nothing but free will leading to unity and again unity that fecilitates free will. Both are necessary for becoming a free and powerful nation in this century. Lets work towards it.

The Fall of Religion - A Look & Some Questions...

Watching the video above, three significant questions with viewpoints come into my mind. I state them below.

1- What indeed is "rationalism"? Sanal Edamaruku did a commendable job in attacking the tantrik. Religion is this country is so paradoxical with conflicting ideas and values. It focuses only at one place - peace of the mind through the dissapearance of money from the pockets. According to me Science should be the only religion and recognition of the principle and action of Atom behind every process must be the path to Spirit. Practicing it will not only prove the Vedic saying that "God is one" but also helps us to recognise and use the power for a constructive purpose. For a detailed discussion do read my blog - Is Atom God?

2- Coming to the tantrik, the very fact that he challenged to kill Sanal LIVE reflected three major flaws of his personality.
a- He does not value human life; while the mantras were aimed for upliftment of the same through purification and expansion of mind. It brings about a serious reflection that what "type" of people are actually using, rather abusing, these sciences. Mind you, I still call them sciences. Every scientific law works in a particular context (for example the gravitational constant in earth will not be acceptable in moon). So was there an appropriate preparation of context in this case? How much of knowledge do we know to even negate it? It failed because it was in the wrong hands, used wrongly and with wrong intentions in an inappropriate context. Serious research is necessary to obtain the guidelines for effective implementation of tantra vidya. And moreover, tantra vidya is for personal purification and so are siddhis and they will certainly fail when abused with no respect for others and aimed for self-glorification.
b- How many tantriks actually do their mumbo-jumbo in the physical prescence of their victims? To the best of my knowledge they do a back-ground job. Then why did this person touch Sanal and make him touch his stuff? Is he not a charlatan of the first order?
c- The tantrik has no faith on his knowledge or else mantras do not require physical prescence. Mantras are supposed to be vibrations and vibrations are waves which travel based on initiating force and the source of the force. The tantrik sounds so drunk, how can the vibration be effective?

3- Last but not the least, based on the video, one cannot refute the existence of "spritualism" . Rationality cannot be anti-spirituality. Rather its the best way and a short cut to the Spirit since many of these unmeaningful rituals can be bypassed. Spirituality is not religion with its mumbo-jumbo, but one has to really sit and define what indeed is spirituality. According to me its the greatest science - a science of "self enquiry", but what is the process? Though we say there are many alternative path to spirit, yet I argue there is NOT! It has to be one glorious path for scientific laws are self-contained in themselves. Since spirituality is a science, the laws of it has to be well-defined and unchangable. However, sadly many of us are unaware. Its for nothing that young men and women have left households to Himalayas. Surely there must be a stronger motivational force to pull them away from the earthly pleasures of wine, women and money so freely available in the plains. Were they aware of those laws or did they leave in the search of those laws? If its the later, then its a really long journey. What is that "force" that pulled them out of their homes and why is it not equally attractive to all? And what does it guarentee on achievement? Till we define that (which soon we must !) we will be at the mercy of such charlatans and hence must boldly declare -Atom is God !

My Freedom and My Fate...A Debate !

This thread I happened to write based on a debate in one of the orkut communities I was a part of. The debate was focused on two major points:

1- Is there something called a fate or destiny?

2- Are we controlled by fate or destiny or by self-effort/free-will?

I thought of viewing it a bit scientifically and I happened to land in a quote: Our sense of freewill is ultimately an illusion. I could not but help myself in plunging into another round of deconstruction. Here it goes...

In the begining I would like to clarify that it is not freewill but free-willS. Life is always a plural phenomena, full of alternatives. Had it been a single line segment, we would not be debating about free-will and fate.

Secondly free-will is not ultimate. Rather the decision to choose a particular alternative is ultimate. Now how does one decide? It is explained by rational choice theory and Adam's equity theory. In any transaction, be social, financial or institutional, one always looks towards getting as much back as one has given. If one gets more/less, there is inequity and this leads to disharmony within oneself. If one gets more than what one deserves there is guiltiness and one has to work hard to prove oneself to oneself. If one gets less, there is a war again and one gets depressed. Then how does one make a choice that will benefit? It is only when one can visualize the effect of one's choices. For many business orgnaiztions, it is a minimum 10 years time for which they start to calculate the Net Present Value of a project before they take up and for many individuals its 4 years. But still a well drawn up plan can face roadblocks from many quarters that one may not comprehend (Bounded-rationality theory). Therefore there is a concept of God as controller. One depends/blames on God or Higher power when one cannot evolve one's mind to that extent where it visualizes a plan competely with road blocks and backups. Hence it all boils down to personal evolution. We are as free as as our visualization and as free as we are evolved. This way God can be defined as a being who has maximum freewill since He is evolved so much that He can see through a plan right from beginning to end with roadblocks and backups. So He never fails! Pretty scientific, isn't it?

What is Grace then and where does it fit in the entire spectrum?
Having defined God and visualization previously, one can define Grace too.
Grace can be defined as a motivation that is transmitted from a person having total visualization to a person having limited visualization to act in a desired manner in order to propell a faster and beneficial decision making for the later. Since most of us have limited vision, we have to call upon God (the person having maximum visualization) to see where our plans have gone wary or can go wrong. Since He is trikaldarshi, the knower of past, present and future, He guides yet never forces us to decisions. A mistake is allowed and many ways are given to come back to the main plan. But still mistakes are allowed. God has the power to limit our choices to a few to enable us to succeed if only we trust on His vision. However He is the greatest democrat. He allows us to have it our own way, yet He is there at your beck and call. Thats why Jesus said, 'Ask, and it shall be Given, Knock and the door shall be opened'. Hence the only free-will that we have is Trust God or trust Self !

Why Research?

Its long I have been hounded by this question by variety of people. The spectrum is wide - from graduates to Post Docs. The first type of questioners are my parents. Like every parents, they dreamt their son to earn in lakhs, marry a drop - dead gorgeous girl and support the family. Hence when I decided on a career of research, initially I found my father researching the options left before me and how I can fulfil his dreams. But unlike every parents, mine were different. No impositions, no arguments, but a hug from him - a silent but firm gesture - showed his faith on me. Whatever may be the outcome of this endeavour, it is a tribute to them, and their faith on an individual who loves to give them surprises, many times nasty and sometimes pleasant. The second type of questioners are my school friends. Few of them are married and almost all of them are employed. Their reaction to my this endeavour was a mixture of shock and disbelief. I was labelled as "insane", "maverick" and what not. Some sent me their wives' photographs wishing to poke my hormones and the "bright future that I happen to miss". Good luck to you guys ! The third category are the peer group I am in. However each of them ask that question to get my future career plans. It always happens that I get advised be many over various "options" before me. An answer follows a comment and ultimately ends in proving the superiority of certain departments and disciplines over others.

Today I thought seriously to clear the air why I am in research. This is not to answer the questioners, but to reaffirm my faith in myself. I view research as an act of evolvement with involvement. You get involved with yourself, discover the assumptions you normally take for granted and question the origin of those assumptions. Research according to me is an act of refinement of mind and through that the being. You present a slice of truth to the waiting mankind, who try to find soccur and solace in it for sometime. You are in the business of solving a puzzle - a puzzle to reconstruct the truth and you dont do it for money... for it cannot be done for money! Research is done for seer joy of doing it.

Research is not the act of proving but contributing. What can you find that does not exist ! What can you prove that is not proved ! You just throw light, you direct attention and offer a view point. The euphoria is in giving another alternative to mankind. Its like the universal spiritual principle of God being one and religions being the paths to the same. So the joy lies in exposing a buried phenomenon. It is a sort of intellectual excavation, where repeated reinforcements have solidified some ideas to permanency. Research loosens it up and makes you mobile. It makes you accept and respect the viewpoints of others. It makes you simple yet effective.

The product of 4-5 years in a research program is not a few papers or a thesis. It is you - a changed being who is impartial and unbiased. The process should make you approachable and one should be able to view things objectively. Hence all the arguments about disciplines and departments being superior should subside. For a true researcher appreciates every organ of the body, missing of any one however small makes the body look ugly. Imagine your hand without the little finger, you will know what I mean !

Let me conclude by stating that all our theories are nothing but generalizations of an observed phenomenon over a wide range of contexts. But somewhere the applicability of the same comes to an end. So why the fights and egos between researchers? Not proving others wrong but reaffirming ones' rightness is the goal. Let it not happen that your learning loses its value in the absence of an audience. Learn for yourself, for the aim is evolvement !

Note: Part of the above article was written by me and was published initially in http://fpm-iiml.blogspot.com/

Conceptualizing the idea of "Service"

Introduction

This piece of writing came out of a clash of thoughts in my head that occoured in a recently concluded management conference. The theme was "Dynamics of modern management - Is service centric strategy the solution?". Well whatever the solution that may have been discussed and debated, what struck me was that "service" is used as a management strategy in today's world to gain and retain customers.

On the other hand my background at the Sri Sathya Sai Institutions had given me a different idea about service. To put it in a nutshell - "Service is a way to God". Numerous discourses and various activities like "Gram seva" reinforced the fact that service is a noble action that pleases God and decreases the distance between Him (gender neutral) and us.

The clash of thoughts occoured for I failed to understand how can I use such a noble action for business profits? Moreover how can I integrate the noble idea of service given by Bhagwan Baba to get business profits?

Research Questions

Since "service" is a buzzword across disciplines and domains, I could not help but define two research question that will help me in conceptualizing "service" that can be used both by spiritual and commercial practitioners.

Question1: What is the basic framework of service that can be used for spiritual progress and business profits?

Question2: What is the definition of service?

Methodology

The methodology I used for arriving at the framework is "situation-analysis" or what we call in IIM lingo as the "case study". However I will like to add that I have taken only those cases that have occoured in front of Bhagwan Baba and am governed by the principle of bounded rationality. The objective I repeat is not to praise individuals but learn from a situation objectively and decode a variable that can help us in decoding service.

The Case Study

This is an oft-repeated story in Prasanthinilayam. It was in 1991 that the Super-speciality hospital was to be built and numerous people were contributing in lakhs. One fine evening Swami walks into the portico with a small envelope. He tears it open to find a letter and a 100 ruppees note. He reads the letter which was written by a primary school child explaining Him that he had saved the money after washing his own clothes without giving to dhobi and decreasing his other kiddish expenditure only to contribute something in His noble mission. Bhagwan lovingly accepted the little act of service and the hospital today is a reality (many doubted its feasibility!).

Conceptualizing Service

1- The first variable that can be instantly decoded is action. Many students would have been sitting there that day appreciating Bhagwan's mission. Among them a few would be thinking of how to contribute in the same. But only one little boy(there may be many but this one came to limelight) thought of doing something, however insignificant it may appear.

2- The next variable that can be decoded is spontaneity. Bhagwan never asks anything nor is Rs. 100 a significant addition in building that huge edifice. Yet what moved and caught Bhagwan's attention (who is the customer in this case!) is the spontaneous reaction of the little boy. Make the customer feel that you are with him / her in thick and thin and will try your level best in meeting his / her expectation. For that spontaneous reaction one needs to tune oneself to the customers' wavelength. Watch out for the need and be quick to respond however insignificant it may appear. Remember many customers watch the process in the service and not the final product. If the process satisfies them, they are yours for lifetime.

3- The last variable that I can decode from the case study is transformation. This I will analyse in both the spiritual and commercial utility. Spiritually transformation means transformation of attitude. Swami says that in the end, you are not serving anyone but yourself and one has to realize that. So the feeling of "give-take" has to be replaced by feeling of "brotherhood". From transaction one has to move to union. From a commercial perspective, it takes a beautiful meaning. It gives the enterprise a chance to analyse the gap between the customer's actual satisfaction and desired satisfaction. Transformation is closing of the gap, and service is the process of closing the same. Moreover, transformation also leads to next step in service where the existing customers become part of the enterprise and helpin increasing the client base (again from transaction it leads to union!).

Definition of service

Having conceptualized service, I now make an attempt to give an operational definition of the same. Before that I want to extend the above dimensions I decoded a step higher.

Action, I argue is a product of head and hand. Similarly spontaneity is an outcome of a sensitive heart. Hence I define service as "An effective coordination of head, heart and hand for the ultimate goal of mutual transformation".

Conclusion

Here I made a small attempt to scientifically and rationally decode the dimensions of service out of a real life example. This was made to operationalize the concept of service in order to facilitate the usage of the same by managers and spiritulists in their endeavour to please their "customers".

The Religion of Future - Atheism+Advaitism !

I love the Atheists. They are a breed who dare to challenge any funny stories about dependence on God. They are individuals who dare to stand on their own feet rejecting all hearsay about supernatural powers controlling their future. They design their destiny and hold themselves responsible for success and failure unlike most of the theists. They are intellectuals, who believed that anything and everything is within oneself and one has to continuously challenge oneself and evolve. The arguments between theists and atheists is legendary. Much nonsense had been said about these atheists. Theists call them "infiedels" while many label them as "Satan's children" while unsure about the existence and morphology of Satan ! Recently I had been reading some literature on Advaita Vedanta and it suddenly struck me out of the blue that Atheists are actually Advaita Vedantins in action! Read on if you are struck with this argument...

Atheism

To have an insight about what is atheism, one needs to tackle the question of origin of God. The theists may not like it, but the concept of God never evolved as a unifying force of love, but as a unifying force of fear. God was a mental construct of a personality who is always on a judge's seat deciding the rightness and the wrongness of activities and giving the relevant rewards and punishments. The worse part is no one can see HIM !! So one never knows from where does the reward and punishment comes from. Hence it forces man to be submissive to a unknown power without knowing the origin and the implications. This ignorance was highly abused by the priestly class who made bucks, turned their own lucks by playing with the fortunes of millions in the name of God. As a reaction to these painful incidents, a group of individuals refused to believe in this "Godly" concept anymore and thus rose the school of atheists. These people aptly beleived that "God was a fanciful imagination who is a product of human cognition and the perfection it can achieve". Just view at the definition critically and let the Dashavataras of Vishnu dance through your mind ! You will find it to be so true! First there was a fish - an aquatic animal, then the tortoise - an amphibian, followed by the boar - a mammal, then Balarama - symbolising that strength is power, then Rama - an ideal man who behaves according to prescribed law, Krishna - who uses his brain to create laws, Buddha - who goes beyond laws and at last Kalki - who symbolises elimination of evil anyway is the path. Well you see that as man develops and matures in his faculties his Gods change! The old one becomes irrelevant and the new one takes His place depending upon the existing cognitive maturity and the perfection wanted. God is thus a dynamic concept and is thus a product to match, a frame of reference for personal evaluation and not a person to be scared. This also explains why different societies have different Gods, for their maturity level was different. So while the Jews proclaimed Jehova as unforgiving and ruthless, Jesus proclaimed Him as loving and a Father. It basically differentiated the maturity level of Jesus with respect to the Jews. Thus atheism volumnously propagates the growth and expansion of human mind to achieve its highest power of comprehending anything and everything.

Advaita Vedanta

This is by far one of the greatest contributions of Hindu philosophy to mankind. Advaita Vedanta basically says that the entire world is just a mental construction of the individual. If you recognise the existence of a sky, it exists for you but if you do not recognise, well it does not exist. So if you realise that you are God, well you become so and thats what Shankara means when he says that realization can be got right here and right now ! So all of us belong to that Supreme Atman if we recognise ourselves to be. And after recognition, we realise that we are indeed BIG individuals who cannot be limited in this fleshy cover. We are indeed FREE beings who control rather than being controlled. We are PERFECT to the core. So as you think so you are - dust you think, dust you are; God you think, God you are!

Just analyze both the thoughts processes of Atheism and Advaita Vedanta. You will see that both of them are literally speaking the same tongue. Both emphasize that the individual is supreme and can be what it wants to be. The individual is the master and makes his/her own destiny. In the end, it is the conquest of human mind - master the mind to be a mastermind! Both force you to think hard on your follies and direct you towards perfection. Atheism is indeed Advaita Vadanta in practice.

The Synthesis

But there is a problem here. Though atheism speaks of perfection, yet where does it derive its frame of reference for perfection from? What is the motivating force for atheists to change and perfect themselves? With what do they compare themselves with to improvise themselves? Usually in these circumstances the atheists take one of the "successful" persons in the society as the benchmark, but how to evaluate that "success"? These are some questions that atheists need to tackle and then they will find that however they may define God, but He is more complete a benchmark where all of us aspire and can be. So I say Atheism is nothing but fragmented Advaita Vedanta.

In the end, I would like to say that we have actually reached a point where we can integrate the two so called conflicting schools of thoughts to evolve a religion that can be practiced to achieve perfection. God is nothing but an ideal man. He is a benchmark each one of us should evalute oneself and try to reach. He is a milestone to be crossed and atheism provides the fastest way to reach the milestone. For it realizes that every power to cross the milestone is within oneself and hence it forces individuals to continuously challenge oneself to be the best and march towards perfection.