Monday, 29 December 2014

Dharma and Yoga

First things first.

All the 'a's in Dharma and Yoga is pronounced as 'u' in 'Burma'. The 'D' in Dharma is pronounced as 'th' in 'That'.

Now that this is cleared, we can move to the real bit.

For some time now, I have been intrigued by what the words Dharma and Yoga actually mean. Without a doubt, these two terms, nay principles, along with Karma are the three most important aspects of the Hindu philosophical system.

While Karma is quite easily understood as 'actions' which forms a part of the Karmic cycle of actions and consequences, the definitions of Dharma and Yoga are quite varied, and sometimes even contradictory.

Upon reading some books, listening to some videos on Youtube, and talking to a few people, I have come to my own understanding of these two concepts. I believe that these definitions will closely match with most of the other definitions that one will encounter in various texts and sources.

I will start with an explanation of Yoga.

Yoga in Sanskrit actually means to join or to unite, and derives from the root yuj which means 'to attach'. Yoga is also used in the meaning of addition. But it is in the former sense that this word is more extensively used.

Yoga as a practice seeks to unite the self with the whole of the cosmic creation. What does this actually mean?

Let's take a very simple example. Our individual lives are driven by some specific desires. More often than not, our thoughts, words, and actions are focused towards fulfilling these desires. However, there are times when we choose to not pursue these desires. Sometimes, we as individuals let go of our individual desires in the 'interest' of our family, our community, our friends, our village, our town, our city, our country, or even the whole earth and nature.

It is in these instances that lies the key to our understanding of Yoga. When we choose to let go of our individual interest for the sake of our family, we do two things:

  1. We consider ourselves to be a part of a unit that is larger than our individual self. In this case, it is our family.
  2. We believe that a greater benefit is to be accrued by fulfilling the interest of this larger unit than by fulfilling our individual interests.

By doing this, we as individuals have unified ourselves with a larger unit, and our interests have been unified with the interests of the larger unit. The notion of 'greater good' comes to mind.

By practice of Yoga, individuals tend to unify themselves progressively with larger units until they are able to unify themselves completely with the entire cosmic creation. Every thought, word, or action of ours, howsoever trivial or unimportant in our or other's perceptions, is focused towards achieving the larger interests of the entire creation. This unification is not easy and that's why Yoga is a practice. It is a process by which one achieves oneness with the entire cosmos.

Let us now visit the notion of Dharma.

Dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root dhr which means 'to hold' or 'to maintain'. The word dharti for earth also derives from this root. What are we trying to hold or maintain through Dharma?

Dharma can be understood to be all those actions or duties that help in maintaining the natural order of all things in cosmos. The usage of the word 'order' is fraught with danger. 'Order' as it is commonly understood is an artificial imposition of certain notions of good and bad. The order being referred to in the context of Dharma needs to be perceived in a more natural sense.

But what is 'natural order'? Aren't we still talking about artificial notions of good and bad?

The answer to this question comes to us from the practice of Yoga. When we achieve unification of self with the cosmos, then our thoughts, words, and actions automatically align themselves with the interests of the entire cosmos. It is these thoughts, words, and actions that are collectively known as Dharma.

Let me use an example to elaborate on this. Our individual interest in eating fish pushes to catch as many fish from the oceans and seas as possible for consumption. Our individual interests in building bigger houses compels us to grab more and more land. However, the moment we understand the larger interest of ecology and environment, and how our own interests lie in fulfilling these larger interests, our efforts move towards preservation of forests and ocean flora and fauna. By this one step of Yogic process, we move a step closer to Dharma.

In summary, Dharma is the manifestation of Yoga. While Yoga is a practice, Dharma is what results from it. Dharma therefore can either be achieved through individual's practice of Yoga, or can be achieved by emulation of the thoughts, words, and actions of a Yogi.

As we start understanding Dharma better, we will understand what is Adharma. Dharma and Adharma are like light and dark. Wherever there is light, darkness cannot exist, and wherever there is darkness, light is absent. Existence of one necessitates elimination of the other. Therefore, for Dharma to survive, Adharma must be eliminated.

Having said that, I won't be surprised that as humanity approaches the perfect Yogic existence, Dharma will reduce to just two concepts - Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence).
Posted by at 4 comments:

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Crime and Punishment

The following excerpt is from the book Aavarana by S. L. Bhyrappa (originally written in Kannada).

"A sin, a crime has two forms of punishment. The first is what is given by an assembly...like...like a court. That is the external punishment. The second is the inner punishment - where the sinner punishes himself with full awareness of the sin he has committed. This is called atonement and it's done for self-purification. In ancient times, both forms were done together. In many cases, the assembly wouldn't take note of certain kinds of sins but the sinner would voluntarily atone for even such sins.

 Atonement is two kinds: the first involves the sinner realizing - body, mind, and soul - that what he did was wrong and the second involves him taking a vow to never commit it again and then punishing himself. 

 Wrongdoings too, are classified into two types: those done in public and those done in secret. Atonement for crimes committed in secret can be performed secretly. It isn't mandatory to tell someone. Atonement for sins done in public should be publicly performed. In other words, the world should know why he is atoning. However, atonement doesn't erase the consequences of the crime. The only purpose of repentance is the purification of mind. The world recognizes in a way, that the sinner is genuinely repentant."

 "A sin is classified into two forms from another perspective: wilful and non-wilful. Wilful is where the person knowingly inflicts an evil act. Such wrongdoings attract the severest punishment."

 "If pride prevents him from doing all this (atonement), then it's not repentance because repentance is a penance, the goal of which is to burn pride."

 It is interesting to know how lucidly the system of crimes, punishments, and atonement is described above. In the following illustration, I have tried to present the above concept in a concise fashion.
Crime
Public
Private
Punishment
External
Public
-NA-
Internal (atonement)*
Public
Private

*atonement consists of three parts: apologize for the crime committed, vow to not commit it again, and put oneself through a punishment by self. For public crimes, all three have to happen in public.
Crime
Wilful
Non-Wilful
Punishment
Severe#
Less severe

#The severity of punishment increases with the severity of the crime. Wilful crimes are more severe than non-wilful crimes.



Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Task Management in three simple steps

When given a task, ask yourself these three questions:

  1. Does the task need to be done at all?
    • If No, then you'd rather do something else than waste your time on this task.
    • Else, proceed to the next question.
  2. Do you yourself have to do this task?
    • If No, then this is somebody else's task that is forced on you. Push this back or delegate to someone else, preferably to the one who was supposed to do this in the first place.
    • Else, proceed to the next question
  3. By how many days can you afford to delay doing this work?
    • If zero, then this is bloody urgent. Do it and do it now.
    • Else, schedule this for later if you have more urgent tasks to do.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 8 September 2014

Dronacharya - the teacher the modern intellectuals love to hate

In the epic of Mahabharata, one episode arouses immense outrage among several modern intellectuals.

Eklavya, a prince of a forest-dwelling tribe, had sought education under Dronacharya, one of the most renowned teachers of the time. Guru Dronacharya, owing to the prevailing customs and laws of the land, and perhaps based on his own assessment of Eklavya, refused to be his teacher. Eklavya then, devoted as he was to Dronacharya, installed his statue at his house and started self-learning the art of archery.

Once, when Dronacharya was conducting a training session for his students at the forest, Eklavya happened to showcase his impressive archery skills to the revered Guru. When inquired, he mentioned he had learnt the skill under Guru Dronacharya himself and showed him the statue he had installed.

Dronacharya, as was the custom, demanded a 'dakshina' from Eklavya which, to the latter’s horror, was his right thumb. While Eklavya displayed his supreme devotion to his teacher by slicing off his thumb and presenting to his Guru, it also supposedly adversely affected his archery.

There are multiple levels at which this story draws outrage from modern readers and interpreters of Mahabharata.

First, the very act of demanding a thumb is deemed cruel. Secondly, the act purportedly betrays a caste-ist attitude of the great Guru who deemed Eklavya, a person belonging to a lower caste, unsuitable to challenge Arjuna, one of noble birth. Thirdly, the act is deemed selfish for a teacher who wanted to maintain the status of his student as the best archer in the world by deliberately undermining someone who could have perhaps been a greater claimant to the title.

The outrage emanates from a number of assumptions – that Drona would not have done so had Eklavya been of noble birth, or had he been a terrible archer.

Whether judgments on other people should be made based on one’s own assumptions and speculations, I wonder. One could assume anything under the sky and come up with any interpretation that suits his or her ideologies.

But consider this scenario – A General at the National Defence Academy is involved in training young men to be officers in the Indian Army. He trains them for several days, gives them skills to shoot weapons, teaches them war strategy, principles and ethics of Warcraft etc. One day a young man from a nearby village approaches the General and claims that he is a fine marksman. He picks up a gun and gives the finest exhibition of shooting the General had ever seen. The young man now requests to join the Indian Army on account of his exceptional gun skills. The General politely refuses and sends him away.

If the General was a little more astute, he would probably inform local Intelligence or Police to keep an eye on the young man lest he be recruited by anti-social elements.
Was the General right in turning away the young boy?

Think about it. Weapon-wielding is as much about the skill of using the weapons as it is about the discipline, the notion of ethics, principles, and the morals that accompany it. Trained Army soldiers are taught not just when to use the weapon, but also when not to use the weapon, how to handle the weapons, the moral choices a solider may need to make in different circumstances, notions of team work, strategy, planning, and strong discipline and self-restraint.

Without these, a soldier is nothing but a loose cannon, or a gun for hire who can be manipulated by good and bad elements both for their ends. This is perhaps the reason why the Army refuses to admit surrendered insurgents or terrorists into its ranks even though they may have had extensive weapons-training.

Eklavya was a great man. He showed tremendous dedication to his craft, an exceptional dedication to learning, and exemplary devotion to his teacher. It is not a wonder that he was respected by all his contemporary kings. Let us not reduce the relation between Dronacharya & Eklavya to pettiness by viewing them through our ideological lenses.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 30 June 2014

Definitions of Socialism

These are some of the quotes I came across on Twitter. I must say I am not completely in disagreement with them.









Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 12 June 2014

Hostage negotiations: the place between the well and the cliff

It is so very commonly seen in the movies that one may be forgiven to believe that taking someone hostage actually increases one's chances of getting away.

Consider a scenario where one has hijacked a plane and has taken all the passengers hostage. The terrorist wants to negotiate the release of the hostages, which basically in simple language means that he wants the Government to accede to all his demands.

The implicit assumption the terrorist carries is that the Government values the lives of the hostage and is willing to go to any lengths to ensure that they are not harmed. This is partly true, but this is also the most disadvantaged position the terrorist can find himself in.

While the assumption that the terrorist will not be harmed as long as the hostages are alive is valid, the very same argument can be turned around on its head to see things from the Government's perspective.

The terrorist has basically no escape, and if he wants to live, the only choice he has is to keep the hostages alive, whether or not his demands are met by the Government.

So, if a Government chooses to not negotiate with the terrorist, the terrorist finds himself cornered. The terrorist cannot escape death in this case, whether or not his demands are met, and whether or not the hostages live. If the terrorist values his life even a bit, he would realize that this is a game for him to lose, no matter what.

In fact, in general, if a Government has a stated policy of not negotiating with any terrorist ever, then it really must discourage terrorists to ever venture towards such actions, because invariably, all roads will then lead only to one inevitability - the death of the terrorists.

I brought up the above example of hijacking because this is perhaps the most recent and the most widely spoken hostage incident to have to happened in the context of India. Yes, I am alluding to the hijacking of an Air India airplane that was taken subsequently taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan. The situation was perhaps different because the hostages were held up in a different country and our security forces did not have any chance to take down the terrorists.

Even then, had we had a stated policy of non-negotiation, the terrorists would have probably not embarked on such a venture in the first place.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 30 May 2014

Blog on Srimadbhagavat Gita

Here is an interesting blog for all those who want to study and understand Srimadbhagavadgeeta श्रीमद्भगवत् गीत (or, popularly known as The Gita).

Note: The description is in English.

Follow the chapter-wise links given below:

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Musings


  1. True globalization is not just free trade, but also free movement of labour (humans).
  2. There is a difference between secularism and pluralism. Hinduism is pluralistic in essence. So, technically Hindutva is not truly secular. However, pluralism embraces good of all participating religions to evolve a better society; it does not fight them. Therein lies the secret of peace, harmony, and prosperity.
  3. Hindutva (or Hinduism) (or, Indian religio-cultural system), nay, all Indic philosophies are essentially pluralistic, i.e. they believe that multiple paths exist to the same reality. That is why many philosophies could co-exist in this country. One could be polytheist, shamanist, monotheist, monist, agnostic, and even atheist and yet be part of the same religio-cultural system. Existing theories could be challenged, debated, modified, accepted, rejected because there was space for everyone.
  4. A pluralistic system mandates that all participating philosophies agree on the basic non-negotiable principle of pluralism, i.e. there exist multiple and equally valid paths to the same reality, or God.
  5. Philosophies that do not accept pluralism as a basic tenet cannot become part of a pluralistic system. Either such philosophies tend to overthrow the system, or are thrown out by the system. In fact, if all participating religions agreed on the principle of pluralism, there would be no need for 'conversions', because all religions would be equally valid. 'Conversions' imply rejection of pluralism.
  6. Religions that do not understand pluralism will be very uncomfortable with a pluralistic system. The Indian religious system had nurtured various religions to co-exist peacefully for thousands of years. Accepting pluralism goes against the fundamentals of most major non-Indian religions. It will kill those religions altogether. That is why they will be uncomfortable.
  7. Stupidity attracts more stupidity. Not ignoring stupidity gives it legitimacy.
  8. It is difficult to keep bias away from interpretation.
  9. Sometimes, a system deliberately chooses to allow Type 2 errors in order to avoid Type 1 errors. In this case, the system allows for later review and correction of Type 2 errors.
  10. Every time people talk about their rights, they need to be reminded of their responsibilities.
  11. The fundamental question about Uniform Civil Code is 'who decides what is right?' This code gives rise to the possibility for the Government to impose a certain system of morality on the population whether or not the latter agrees with it. Unless, the government draws the basis of Uniform Civil Code on some fundamentally non-disputable moral axioms, the code can be abused by the government, whether the current, next, or the future ones.
  12. When something becomes an article of faith, it is best to sit back and not argue over it.
  13. It is our responsibility to be not swayed by opinions of others, but to constantly seek the truth, howsoever uncomfortable it may be, and howsoever opposed to our inherent biases it may be.
  14. There is a difference between knowing the right things and doing the right things.
  15. It is impossible for human societies to eliminate differentiation. However, discrimination can and must be eliminated.
  16. When there is an equally valid shortcut to a certain path, people will always choose the shortcut.
  17. It is important to distinguish between design problems and implementation problems.
  18. Every prostitute was once a virgin too.
  19. हवस एवं घृणा की भूख कभी नहीं मिटती है।
  20. It is difficult to keep bias away from interpretation
  21. Victims of religious riots should never be identified by communities. For every story of a victim from one community, another story of a victim from another community will be spoken, and this leads to greater polarization and discord between the communities.
  22. One can question an intelligent person's ideas, but one cannot question the person' intelligence.
  23. 'Open Secret' is a wonderful tool to disguise and propagate speculations as truth.
  24. Easiest way to eliminate hardliners (or, for that matter any political opponent) from political space is to discredit them with stories, real or otherwise, of moral/ financial/ ethical corruption. Once discredited, it is easy to put them out of public memory.
    At the same time, it is important to check any budding hardliners (or, political opponents) on the fringes before they gain a wider audience.
  25. In the land of crooks, the first person to be hanged is the honest one.
  26. Unsolicited help, unsolicited information, and unsolicited advice must never be offered.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 27 March 2014

And then we fought.













Posted by at 1 comment:

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Why PSU banks should not be merged?

Read this article on Swarajya Magazine 

 ----
Recently, there have been some murmurs from some corners that PSU banks should be merged for reasons that include, among others, improved efficiency, greater coverage, increased competitiveness, and greater muscle to compete with private banks.

 The reasons behind such suggestions, however well-intentioned, are fundamentally flawed. For one, the field of play is not at the same level for the private banks and PSU banks. Without such an equality established, the idea of PSU banks competing with private banks cannot be termed as fair. Let me enumerate the reasons.

 PSU banks come from an era when Internet banking, Phone banking, and even ATMs had not yet arrived. These banks invested heavily in real-estate and established physical branches at different cities, sometimes at multiple locations within the same city. Each of these branches had to be staffed with people. When the age of Internet and mobile phones arrived, PSU banks had to add-on to their branch-heavy infrastructure with an equally heavy IT infrastructure. The costs of maintaining physical branches, staff, and IT infrastructure not only adds to high operational costs of PSU banks, but also leads to redundancy of resources.

 Compare this to the private banks in India who have a substantially lower branch density which they augment with a large ATM network within the city to provide basic banking facilities to consumers. Additionally, phone banking and Internet banking reduces customers' need to visit branches very often. This gives private banks flexibility to rationalize on the number of branches and reduce costs of real-estate and wages.

 Technically, it could be argued that PSU banks could also fashion such an optimal channel strategy to rationalize costs, but this is easier said than done. PSU banks are heavily regulated by the Government. They are mandated by the Government to open branches in rural and semi-urban areas where private banks rarely have a presence. Many of these rural and semi-urban branches are practically running in losses since the business generated by these branches is not even enough to cover the costs of operating the branches.

 Moreover, with strong employee unions present in PSU banks, it is nearly impossible to lay-off people in case the banks decide to shut down the loss-making branches. Having a large number of redundant staff will not only lead to massive inefficiency in operations, but will also lead to a lot of negativity among the employees, thereby adversely affecting the banks' performances.

 This is also the reason why PSU banks have not been able to utilize outsourcing options because it entails laying off redundant staff which the Unions will fiercely oppose.

 Finally, every PSU bank worth its salt has a branch in the most important commercial areas of any city. These branches are, without doubt, responsible for a significant share of the banks' business. If two PSU banks are merged, then what happens to their respective branches in the same areas? Which branches will be shut down and which will be retained? Which set of staff will be laid-off and which ones will be retained? There will be many such insurmountable issues.

 Unless PSU banks are given the same freedom and flexibility as private banks (or, are privatized), the idea of merging PSU banks is akin to pushing them down the path of disaster. This is a sure shot way to decimate them.

 A more reasonable solution may be seamlessly integrate banking between different PSU banks so that customers are able to access banking services for their accounts in any PSU bank irrespective of the bank they opened their accounts in. This might also open opportunities for PSU banks to share a common ATM network, common Internet banking and phone banking platforms.

 Unless the Government wants to deliberately bleed PSU banks to the point whether they can be put up for sale to private players at throw-away prices, the strategy of merging PSU banks is inexcusably ill-thought.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

Life of (Good) Bye

“It’s important in life to conclude things properly. Only then can you let go. Otherwise you are left with words you should have said but never did, and your heart is heavy with remorse."

 "I suppose in the end, the whole of life becomes an act of letting go, but what always hurts the most is not taking a moment to say goodbye."

 - Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 3 January 2014

AAP's Delhi Government: How to reform reforms?

AAP has certainly caught the imagination of the popular media, and to a large extent, urban youth. It's image of being an honest party, with the advantage of having a clean slate, definitely is attractive to a number of people who are tired of waiting for India's Big moment.

 With this promise of future, people voted for and then welcomed AAP to form the Government in Delhi. The party has not disappointed so far. Within the first few days of its coming into power, the new government introduced new water and electricity subsidies, ironically called reforms by their supporters, that provided free water and cheaper electricity to people with lower consumption of the said utilities.

 While the idea to give something free to the deprived does appeal from a humanitarian point of view, there are some important points that AAP need to look into to ensure that its said reforms are indeed progressive and not regressive for the nation.

 Firstly, cross-subsidization of a set of consumers by charging a higher price to another set of consumers is not unheard of in the history of economics and business. At the face of it, the new schemes of the new Delhi government appear to be following this principle but there is an important distinction. In case of cross-subsidization, there is an apparently inferior product or service that is offered at throw away prices the losses due to which are more than ably compensated for by those who aspire to purchase a superior product or service at a much higher price. It also puts in place an incentive for consumers of the inferior product or service to aspire for the superior product or service. In the current scheme, there doesn't seem to be any such evidently superior product or service for those paying higher prices. This therefore, contrary to the intended result, compels people to seek lower prices for the said product or service by cheating and other unscrupulous means. 

 Secondly, every subsidy scheme that is offered must clearly outline the intended results/benefits, a fixed time-frame within which to achieve the results, and a well-defined regular monitoring and periodic review processes. The results of the monitoring and review processes should be shared with the public. This would ensure that subsidy schemes do not become perennial bottomless dumping pits for tax payers' money.

 Thirdly, the government of Delhi needs to eliminate corruption in distribution of water and electricity to ensure fairness in implementation of these schemes. Pilferage must be stopped, electricity theft must be eliminated, and tampered meters must be identified and corrected. Without these solid ground-level actions the schemes would remain good only on paper and the existing disenchantment may continue to persist, if not grow even worse.

 Fourthly, the government of Delhi must ensure that the benefit of these schemes reaches the intended segments and reaches only them. As has been pointed out earlier by several other journalists, commentators, and politicians alike that a number of poor households in Delhi do not even have a proper DJB connection, let alone functioning meters, and therefore cannot avail of the benefits of the water subsidy being offered by the Delhi government. The intended benefit however accrues to those who have valid connections and meters even if they did not need the subsidy in the first place.

 While the above points are important from an operational point of view, the Delhi government also needs to focus on the strategic aspect of these subsidy schemes, namely, the basic rationale on which the nature of the subsidies has been founded. The government needs to clearly define what is meant by high-usage and low-usage. It needs to share the set of criteria and analysis based on which it concluded that the limit of 667 litres of water a day and 400 units of electricity a month represent all and only the deprived sections of the society. Are these limits chosen arbitrarily? How many people actually consume less than this limit? What is their socio-economic profile? What percentage of consumers consumer under this limit? There is no point in announcing a subsidy if the percentage of population that consumes under the said limits is insignificant. The subsidy then only reduces to mere symbolism without any intended social benefits.

 Finally, in all this, the Delhi government must ensure self-sufficiency of finances for itself and all its various departments. The government must share its plans on how it intends to fill the revenue deficit, either in the short-term or the long-term, that is caused due to these subsidies. Simply bleeding the State exchequer dry will not only defeat the purpose of a positive change that people of Delhi sought but will also put AAP in the unenviable club of other 'socialist' parties like SP, RJD, TMC etc.

 The people of Delhi have high expectations from AAP. It is time for AAP to deliver and distinguish itself.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)