One frequent thought that people drop in response to friendships is that there is just no time. The pace of life, commuting, demands of work and family all have added to a situation where there is no time remaining for keeping in touch with friends. Hence, some relationships get dropped by the wayside. This is often the story of several women who when asked how many school or college friends they kept in touch with, many would not be able to count even one among them. The reason given is once they leave the educational system they get married and all attention, time and energies gets focused on the newer unit that they are part of after marriage. This is obviously no one’s fault but the social structures that men and women are part of, say marriage, elicit such responses from them.

But I am still left with a nagging feeling. It is not all about time is it? One of the factors that I have often heard is that friends whose social status or economic strata changes over a period of time lose touch faster than anything else. A newer unsaid dimension even if they don’t speak about it has entered the picture. The relative difference that has emerged in the material existence of the two friends who have grown together causes some tension. This perceived difference in status tends to diminish the frequency of contact between those who were earlier friends if not root out the relationship completely. Interestingly, factors like caste or race or language or religion or ethnicity tend to be overridden in the early days of the friendship and remain overwhelmed in relationships but class can be an intruder.

What next? We have noted time, gender and class as variables that affect friendships. Workplace/collegiate relations sometimes metamorphose into healthy friendships. This is a larger debate by itself but like class there is a need for caution if the levels of hierarchy of the friends are different. Whether we like it not, hierarchy in organizational contexts does play a role. Likewise can men and women be just friends as epitomized in the classic film ‘When Harry met Sally’? Again, there are ground rules for such relationships and they are very much possible.

Why is friendship important? What is hot about people being just friends? Clearly, these are the only ties that are not bound by blood or primordial sentiments like caste or race or ethnicity or religion or nationality, kinds of compartments within which we work in for most part of our lives. A friend is family indeed but just that s/he is not connected to you through blood ties. Our children are taught in their proverb/phrase books ‘A friend in need is a friend indeed.’ Whenever we are stuck with some issue or problem that we are unable to resolve by ourselves, we immediately think of a friend who can address this for us. Such is the supporting function of friends. But as stated at the very outset, it neither begins nor stops there.

Friendship is about another human presence. It is about the no-holds barred space which we long for in life but find it is all divided up in silos. One can speak one’s heart and mind to a friend and be accepted for who you are as you are. It is commonplace to hear people say in a marital context, “Ah, at last, you have found your SOUL-MATE.” Why the connectivity between ‘souls’ gets confined to marriage or they are only a prerogative of marriage is anyone’s guess? This could possibly be because of a social anxiety that marriage should be accorded the highest form of friendship. This is true but yet presents an incomplete picture because individuals define social spaces as they deem fit. In the process of evolving as a person, the insight of our friends about us are a source of nurture and criticism.

One pre-condition to friendship is that there are synergies between the two people or mutuality of perception and association. Several efforts are wasted when there is a complete difference between the perceptions of the two people regarding what constitutes their friendship and people are then forced to move on in life. Regardless of the type of friendship, trust is a critical factor which affects whether the friendship would last a lifetime or just one of those passing episodes of life.

Among the most important concerns is the deployment or claims or use of the term ‘friend’ in conversations. Numerous are the cross-cultural examples of pub-mates where one of them does not get invited to say the other’s wedding and is shocked, “ I thought that I was his friend.” Sure but did the latter take the trouble to decipher in what sense the term ‘friend’ was used? Don’t we all work with at least three gradations of social interaction? These are acquaintances, colleagues and friends. Acquaintences are those whom you meet on the street or in the corridor at work place; colleagues whom you spend the most part of 8 to 10 hours every week day and friends are those whom we have been talking about.

Popular media and history are replete with examples and references to friendships. Who can forget the mid-1970s classic Hindi film Sholay that celebrated friendship with the famous song ‘Yeh dosti !’ However, in the final analysis, friendship is an aesthetic almost spiritual principle. It is about the divine, sacred and beautiful in earthen human relationships. It is about the lived experience of bonding between people on the principle of common humanity. It is an idea that challenges the narrow-minded spaces that caste or race or religion or ethnicity or even class breed often in society.

May friendships win!

ShareThis

My sympathies are with the Liger, I sort of understand what it goes through. My father is reserved & laid-back, with unbridled curiosity & a scientific temper. He’s a curious admixture of serenity &  irascibility. His flashes of insight are all the more stunning because, he appears stupendously unreactive – a pensive man lost in his thoughts. My mother on the other hand, is a hard-nosed administrator & a chess champion. She has scant need for philosophy, she yawns when a stunning insight is cracked open & presented to her. She has ice in her veins & never flips. Not even when the house is on fire.

I pretty much got both their traits. I’m very peaceful when I write a well-researched post, fiction or book. I’m in my element but, I’m not happy. Peace, Aye. Happiness, Nay. Because simultaneously, I’m conflicted that I’m not “running” something. There are so many things that need to be done, I tell myself. How can I explore or research? So I write a book – Big deal! Isn’t fixing something – anything, however trivial – a worthwhile contribution? Hence, a better use of my time?

And the struggle goes on. One would think I’ll be in Hog Heaven when I’m managing a venture. I’m terribly giddy when I control not just the outcome, but the approach. But, am I peaceful? Outcome orientation is stressful, it takes a lot from you.

A good friend once told me that an ideal profession is one that recharges you. See, in whatever we do, there’s Give & Take. If you perennially give a bit of yourself to your profession & it seldom energizes you – doesn’t make you jump out of bed everyday in anticipation of meeting that day’s challenges – you’ll simply burn out. If on the other hand, your job taps into your pleasure circuit, but  if you don’t offer enough to the world – you may feel like a petty thief, caught with your hand in the till.

Unfortunately, most professions don’t balance Give & Take. For what energizes each of us & when we feel productive are highly subjective & open to debate. I think when there’s a happy medium, a job becomes addictive.

Pardon the preamble, I had to meander through that to explain why I haven’t written often enough in this delightful BLOG. I started a business – a social venture & a start-up – a few months back & that’s keeping me beyond busy. I was ecstatic when I wrote about Sri Lanka, but all the while, I had a gnawing feeling that I wasn’t doing my bit for the society. And invariably, “doing my bit” means – you guessed it – being my own boss & running a business.

You could say that’s because I couldn’t leave well enough alone. But I know that my inner Liger shook its mangy, flea-ridden mane. I’m trying to strike a balance, to find mental energy for both my passions. Its difficult, makes me want to gnash my teeth ferociously, but it sure makes life lively. So, please bear with my erratic writing habits while I lasso the beasts.

“You know what your problem is?” asked a relative, during a family event. Oh, dear Sainted Baptist, Here it Comes, I thought. Such questions put me on my guard, I raise my armor. “Surely, you won’t be angry, Eh? Can I take some liberty with you?”. You may not, I thought. I unsheathed my Light Saber, ready to lash out if needed. After some more circumlocution, the woman blurted out – “You think too much, that’s your problem. You know, just do it!”. She looked up expectantly, like a Jack Russell Terrier might, after performing a nifty trick. I almost patted her head.

I never thought bungling one’s way through life, blind as a bat, oblivious of obstacles, would bring one any great joy. Ignorance maybe Bliss, but that’s not what I would call a tempting option. Sure, there are confused people, who buckle down, thanks to Analysis Paralysis. Confusion & Conflict – Ain’t the same.

Observing our mental dynamics non-judgmentally will not necessarily hobble our functioning. Even in Quantum Mechanics, the Observer Effect doesn’t stall progress, it merely alters the state or position of the particle. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion.

I once read that a child gets its father’s gums & its mother’s teeth – or it could be the other way round, I’m not sure. You could say that’s a fair division of genes between your progenitors. But that sure makes life complicated: When life hands us our genes, we need to figure out how to make the disparate, dissimilar parts work – not at cross purposes, chewing each other off – but synchronously, so that we are not constantly bickering with ourselves. I’m working on finding that elusive balance. But in the meantime, I have to sign off. The inner Lion is about to chomp the inner Tiger’s tail, for taking the Sunday off, for – writing.

ShareThis

If and when the parent warns the child in the following terms: “I told you not to play with this those dark-skinned fellows (sic)” can go in for a lifetime of a sense of clear-cut difference, if not bias against those who look black. This point is globally valid. Apart from parents and teachers, the next source of learning could be the peer group. Being teased by a peer-group for belonging to a particular community or hearing the peer group extolling the strengths of a community or perhaps downplaying them could also be a contributory factor.

While all of the above are manageable factors because people unlearn or relearn what they have picked up in their early years so long as the weightage of these values or biases is not too strong. Among the most dangerous form of socialization is that which is performed on  innocent young minds by a socio-political organization or movements.  A brilliant imagery of how mindsets can be modified by groups is demonstrated by the 1997 film . Another major source of prejudice, to state the point briefly, is of course. repeated media coverage of social groups with certain slants/steretypes  which engenders stereotypes of its own.

About a decade or two back it was not uncommon to hear the unselected candidates who emerge out of public service commission interviews complaining that people of certain castes/communities alone were selected. The private sector was largely held free from such problems as it rewarded merit and talent alone, regardless of the cultural background. A large part of the grouse regarding these issues or the hurt felt used to be swept under the carpet. At the highest levels of governance, citizens of various countries are reminded that they ought to think of their nations first rather than the regions or other parochial units among them.

It is here that commonsense understanding militates against social science perspectives of the issue. First and foremost, the primary unit of existence or what is considered as the parochial or the region or even case or community for that matter cannot be denied at all. It is a reality and people very much relate to it on a day to day basis. In social science language we call this the relationship between the UNIVERSAL and the PARTICULAR. There are several particulars and one cannot deny them. There are several primordial sympathies if not affiliations such as caste, community, religion, region, race and so on. So, what then is the UNIVERSAL. The managers of a large country such as ours would consider the NATION as the universal. We then have to draft the equation between the Universal and the Particular within the nation. The moment the individual moves into the globalization process as a member of an MNC, then even the nation becomes a particular in the economic sense and the globe itself becomes the universal with national economies becoming interlocking units into the globalization experience. So, when what unit becomes a ‘universal’ and a ‘particular’ remains a question mark?

It is therefore important that we respect all the so-called ‘parochial’ units or ‘particulars’ as I have redesignated them. It is not the rejection of the particular that is the solution at any level but the transcendence of the particular for a higher goal. The idea of denying the specific or parochial is a polemical method or dominant discourse that seeks to mandatorily define the universal as a certain set category as for example either the region or the nation. In a globalised word, identities are always in a state of flux and so to typecast and straitjacket various levels is a really loss for understanding social, political and economic relations in the globe.

A very old and classic tension is related among Gen-X several of whom opted to learn western pop music. Immediately, among their elders was a hue and cry about how Indian classical music was being abandoned. While there have been real interventions in the form of movements from the 1980s which have taken this perception seriously and tried to popularize Indian classical music, what is important is to notice that right afterwards western music too or its local strains like Indi-pop became very popular. Why is it necessary to think one in exclusion or opposition to the other?

Jawaharlal Nehru spoke about Indian culture or heritage being a palimpsest in which the older strains don’t get wiped away. Rabindranath Tagore whom both Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru hailed as ‘Gurudev’ was among the most cosmopolitan personalities that India nay the world had at the beginning of this century. He had the passion for art and literature both European and Indian, the cultural travels and synthesis both Indian, European and East Asian. Most Indians associate Tagore with barely the national anthem but I would consider his name as synonymous with cosmopolitanism. So was Mahatma Gandhi who argued that if we were all “true believers” of our respective faiths, we would never even speak ill of other religions. Nehru with his agnosticism and mighty international statesmanship directed us to look for oneness beyond the immediate boundaries.

We don’t need to look further than these three heroes for the relationship between the universal and particular and transcending all of them to build that sense of togetherness which is what cosmopolitanism is all about.

ShareThis

Sport and sporting skills is often a reference point in learning and development traditions not to miss our national obsession of cricket. Military practices of precision timing and endurance are also a source of precedent. I have however a different interest in drawing upon learning and development traditions: that of the arts and aesthetics. From school days onwards I had gotten to know that ballet traditions like the Bolshoi theater acquired their participants between their age of 7 and 9. Numerous have been the cases of child prodigies, musicians and performers who started out at a very early age and made it big in their chosen fields of art or aesthetics. For example, the legendary violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin started his instruction at the age of three. The mantra here seems to be “Catch them Young.”

When we refer to the arts and aesthetics, what do we have in mind? Broadly these are Singing, Music, Dance, Drama/Theater/Cinema, Art/Painting/Sculpture. Participants in these fields learn these skills in an atmosphere different from that of formal education. Increasingly in the Indian public arena, individuals are discovering what they most have a talent for? Doctors on completing their medical education are leading full time pop/rock bands and engineers on completing their education or even mid-way are moving to theatre or social work or civil service as their vocation. There is an interesting trend of many senior advertisement industry professionals participating in writing lyrics for movies, poems, theatre activities (the latter something that has always been there) but the blending of spheres is increasingly taking place. Creativity, Innovation, ‘Out of the Box thinking’, words that the formal sector swears by and finds hard to implement come naturally to those in the field of art and aesthetics. Generally, the skills that go into assimilating arts and aesthetics would be dubbed as ‘right brain’ activities where a lot more intuition, holistic and poetic meters are called for. What is different about the atmosphere of the learner in these fields? The learner is enthusiastic with the instructor or facilitator that he should get it right. Remember the famous scenes in “My Fair Lady” based on George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Pygmalion’ when Eliza tries to cultivate an accent with the help of Higgins and Pickering.

What are the differing motivations of the learner in art and aesthetics as different from formal education? One common thread is there is often in art too a strong commercial incentive. There are several performers who make no bones that they are in it for the money. There are other motivations like “Art for Arts sake”, “Transmitting tradition” (preserving heritage) and sheer satisfaction of the performance as a musician or a stage artist. The emotive space is higher and the participants pack the punch in their performances. The participant is more driven and the competitive arena is very different. Peer group pressure or competition often becomes peer group support in the shared feeling of a group or team to get it right. The urge to synchronize/synergize learning energies is strongly present and takes on a form very different from that of formal education. A group of dance performers in a synchronized performance cant get it right for the group until each one of them gets it right.

While one cannot say that learning and development traditions in art and aesthetics are “unstructured”, the shackles are much lesser. Again, does it mean that just because it is art and aesthetics the rigor is less and the training can be taken for granted? If not anything just the opposite, it is even more exacting and demanding because the self is propelled as the best critic and that judgment as we know is even more difficult to make or compromise upon rather than when others stand in judgment over our work. One would have heard several times what sound almost like clichés today, “bring out the best in the student/trainee.” It is often the instructional methods of the arts and aesthetics that succeed in doing that through various methods: making mistakes is not wrong; serendipity is to be encouraged; there is latitude of time; enjoy the task of learning and training (no one compelled the learner to be there); push the envelope/work harder for that Michael Angelo achievement, “Trifles make perfection”; even better a sense of solidarity with the learning group: take other learners with you in the path of knowledge.

The central question that folk in formal education would like to take away from art and aesthetics is the pedagogy (or instructional methods) of the latter and apply it to the former. What makes the learner tick? Is it all about right or left brain activity? As a friend expressed, people seek out right-brain kind of activities to break the monotony of continuous left-brain work. Its that monotony that formal streams have to shatter if they seek to make a breakthrough in adapting learning methods from one type of activity to another. Art and Aesthetics sound more fun. Are these the learning spaces in society where one lets one’s hair down? Whereas formal application and a lot of it are drudgery? Why is it with an increasing growth of extra-curricular activities, the child is finding the going in curricular work increasingly difficult. We have remained a society where we see the coming generations becoming mainly doctors, engineers and at the most CA’s/MBAs. However, a large part of society does live its life as doctors, engineers, CA’s/MBAs, lawyers, civil servants and so on. The effort made to learn on the beaten track has been the predominant effort.

Conceptually, to my mind, it is the concept of CRAFT that unites the learning around around formal education or that around art and aesthetics. Craftsmanship is common to both formal and the aesthetics streams. How many times have we not appreciated a store salesman who does his job of packing goods well? Likewise are the thousands of weavers, potters and toy-makers who are artisans, take pleasure in their tasks and earn their livelihoods from them. For in the final analysis, we are all artisans doing our bit to engender wealth and aesthetics both at the same time in this world. Artisans, history bears us out, have played a powerful role in both European and non-European histories but that is a different subject. What is of interest to us are their instructional methods in transmitting their skills from generation to generation.

ShareThis

The biggest circus of 2009 – the Indian Parliamentary Election – has ended. The decisive mandate has left many stunned & speechless. I measure my feelings by the Richter scale – so I’m – devastated. We are inundated by claims from Talking Heads that Indians have voted for Stability, Secularity or Pro-Nuclear Deal. All that bunkum has left me slightly nauseous.

To my utter consternation, Sukumar Rajagopal is pleased as punch. Since our reactions are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, in the true spirit of democracy, we had a discussion to understand each other’s perspective. For Parliament literally means, “Speak Your Mind”.

Priya: I’m extremely depressed by the election results. But inexplicably, you’re as happy as a sun-bathing cat.

Sukumar: This is a positive vote for Stability. It allows the Congress to pursue their policies without being hobbled by the Left. What bothers you so much?

Priya: Well, I expected a change. So many things are hopelessly wrong today. And now, tomorrow won’t be any different. Doesn’t corruption bother people any more? Billions of $$ were gobbled up by the DMK goons in Spectrum Allocation. Congress let Quattrochi escape – and here’s the cropper – our Prime Minister almost apologized for putting him through “all the trouble”.

Sukumar: I agree, corruption is an endemic problem in the Indian system. I wonder if anyone can clean it up. As for Quattrochi, what did the BJP do when they were in power for 5 years? They could have easily put all the Bofors scamsters behind bars. What prevented them from doing it?

Priya: So, nothing will clean up India – short of a miracle? I don’t know, I think there are clean leaders in India, that can make a difference. Such as Modi or Nitish Kumar. How about Homeland Security? Terrorists attack us with impunity. Take the ghastly attacks in Mumbai, the nerve center of India. I think Congress – while not exactly soft – isn’t hard enough on terror.

Sukumar:Terrorism is an international scourge. There’s no easy solution. What did BJP do during Kandahar, Babri Masjid or the Godra riots? That doesn’t inspire confidence, at least not mine. Will wonders never cease? You – of all people – are rooting for Modi? Talk about a volte face!

Priya: About Kandahar – BJP freed some terrorists to save 184 passengers. What would you have them do, let a bunch of innocent people die? I don’t have to be a trident wielding, saffron clad Hindutva activist, to appreciate Modi’s administrative prowess. He has indeed reduced corruption in Gujarat. As an honest person that longs for a cleaner government, its hard not to appreciate Narendra Modi for that. But yes, I’m unable to shake the bad taste in my mouth that the Godra riots have created.

Why do you support Congress? What have they done?

Sukumar: If Modi is loved in Gujarat, how did Congress win more seats in this election than in 2004? Even the margins of victory for BJP have come down in Gujarat!

You have to remember, Congress came to power on the Aam Aadmi plank. Their NREGA is  a damn good program, that guarantees employment for the rural poor. But what is more heartening to me is – they continued Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan – BJP’s well-thought out education program.

Priya: Now that you mention it, Praful Patel has performed stupendously by privatizing airports. Laloo Yadav turned the creaking, groaning, inefficient Indian Railways around.

Sukumar: Patel did that in the face of severe opposition! Turning around Railways was thought to be an impossible task. Almost, a Labor of Hercules!

Priya: Still, they had strange bed-fellows. They made CBI their hand-maiden, so that murderers like Shibu Soren could go scot-free. And how about the two-faced Communists. According to them, supporting the United States is unpatriotic. But, they’ll readily sell us to China! “Isms” of all shades disgust me. Not to mention the despicable DMK. Congress never even let out a squeak when Karunanidhi insulted the sentiments of the Hindu majority, by stating that Ram & Sita were siblings. Just so a DMK minister could execute the Sethu Samudram project & line DMK pockets. But, no one was taken to task.

Sukumar: Yes, DMK shouldn’t have done that. You & me, we are non-believers, but we respect the beliefs of others. But, DMK? They are just hypocrites who wouldn’t dare question the beliefs of the minority. I’m certainly glad that they don’t trample on the sentiments of at least some pockets of the society!

Communists were the fly in the ointment for the Nuclear Deal. That’s another achievement of the Congress-led UPA. They resisted all attempts by the Left to sabotage the deal. They stood their ground.

Priya: I still have some grievances around River Water Sharing. Mainly, Cauvery Water. They couldn’t enforce the Supreme Court’s order on Karnataka. They were impotent even when SM Krishna’s Congress government was in power in Karnataka. What’s the use of a National party, if it won’t abandon petty regional interests?

Sukumar: Could BJP make it happen, when it was in power? No one wants to jeopardize their vote banks. I’m happier with a moderately competent government, that is peace-loving & non-threatening to communal harmony. Rather than a potentially competent – yet, rabidly communal government! The latter can cause severe harm to India’s stability as a society.

Priya: Let’s cut the bull, Sukumar. The lower strata of the society voted in droves. When I spoke to some of them, they didn’t even realize that voting for the Parliament (Center) & the Assembly (State) were different. None of them knew about the Nuclear Deal. Most didn’t care about corruption. So how did BJP botch this election? They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory!

Sukumar: I don’t think the Common Men & Women are too disillusioned with Congress. BJP mismanaged their campaign. Advani never proposed good schemes. He didn’t attack the astronomical prices of essential commodities – even though their prices have gone up by 30-40% or even 100-200%, thanks to galloping inflation. That’s a hot button issue for the lower strata. BJP never addressed such basic concerns. Instead, they reopened Ram Janma Bhoomi! Clueless of them.

Priya: I guess you’re right about the Center. But, what about the state? Why didn’t people reject the puke-worthy DMK? I’m shocked that they didn’t face a stronger anti-incumbency wave. Their blatant, shameless promotion of their family members is scary. When Azhagiri’s faction reportedly burnt down the Dinakaran (Newspaper) office, 3 innocent people died. No action has been taken so far – Diddly Squat.

Sukumar: Yes, that is indeed deeply troubling. However, there has been a significant swing of 15% against DMK. Unfortunately 10% of that went to DMDK, Vijayakanth’s party – whose sole reason for existence seems to be to split the ADMK vote! What was Jayalalitha thinking, when she gave so many seats to PMK, MDMK & the Left? Had ADMK contested on those constituencies, it might have changed the outcome of this election, at least in Tamil Nadu.

Priya: I’m grief stricken that the anti-incumbency vote in Tamil Nadu was only 15%. Law & Order has gone to the dogs. DMK distributed money openly to buy votes. Electricity or lack of it in Tamil Nadu, has been nothing short of a disaster! So many small industries went bankrupt thanks to the inept handling by Arcot Veerasamy, the Electricity Minister. How did people forgive DMK?

And while we suffered from Inflation, Terrorism, Rowdyism & Shortage of Electricity, the DMK Supremo fasted for foreigners – Srilankan Tamils. I’ve never felt more insulted before.

Sukumar: IMHO, the most important reason for ADMK’s failure is Jayalalitha’s inability to propose solutions that provide hope. Right now, she merely criticizes DMK on every single thing under the sun. I would accuse BJP of the same foible. Neither parties had a proposal that could galvanize people to rally around them & vote for them.

Priya: When will this change? Are we doomed to put up with Congress & DMK?

Sukumar: BJP & ADMK have their work cut out for them. They have to understand the pulse of the Common People, think of Bold Policies to energize the masses. BJP has the unenviable task of finding a replacement for Advani. Will it be Modi? They better get cracking on cleaning up his “Minority Baiter” image. Not that Advani has a clean image either, what was he – an innocent bystander when Babri Masjid was destroyed?

Readers – What do you think? We’ve reached an impasse. Is there any hope for India? Is BJP our ticket for better governance? Or is it the Secular Congress? Tell us! We’d love to hear from you.

ShareThis