Moses, the great liberator and great leader of ancient days, faced major problems with the people he liberated, where they felt that they were better-off in Egypt. The years, decades of slavery made them feel that slavery after-all was what was best for them. Even if it limits you, you are still getting taken care of.
Life outside is too risky. There is too much at stake. When I have someone who I can touch and feel, providing for my needs and even well-being and security, why take a chance getting out of that?
The child who never wants to grow up.
The slave who never wants to be free.
The prisoner who does not now want to leave the prison, so he finds ways and means to get back!
The Predictable and the Limited taste much better than the Uncertain yet Opportune. These limited beliefs will end up being our conviction. These convictions become cozy. They become our cocoon, warming us up always. The shelter, the protection. Let me be a worm. Why break the cocoon to be a butterfly, only to be eaten by the bird! A worm's funeral is no worse!
Individuals live like this. Organizations live like this. They don't live. They exist. Their cocoons get revamped every now and then. But good care is taken by them that even by accident they do not become the butterfly. They do not want to listen to someone who says, Man, your organization can be a butterfly garden instead of a worm farm. Your life can fly freely smelling flowers in the garden.
No, I am proud to be a worm. I am happy to be a worm. Come-on, are you crazy? There may be some fools in my organization who want to be a butterfly. But if they break out of the cocoons, thanks to your mis-guiding them, then what about me? My cocoon? My life? My retirement? My post-retirement benefits?
Go away! You don't understand. Being a slave is a good thing, after-all.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Economics of Morality
There is a lot of discussion in the media, mainly by the un-involved, as the chicken in the ham-and-bacon-restaurant story, about the morality of microfinancing variants and social entrepreneurship.
Morality is a consequence of economic forces by and large, whether we like it or not. Let us take the example of microfinancing.
Microfinancing is a concept of small loans, higher interests, more frequent re-payments and higher tolerance to delinquency in repayments because of genuine reasons of being unable to repay sometimes.
Who benefits in this game?
The financier defintely benefits because the interest rates are higher. The financier indeed should benefit because he needs increasing capital to invest further, and to grow his business of micro financing, and thereby cover larger cross-sections of the poor. Over time, the financier's target population spreads out further to a slightly higher economic level and hence larger coverage. This is plain law of physics anyway, since the water spreads equally across the lowest lying regions in its coverage, before the level of the water rises, and goes to wider areas.
Who else benefits?
The poor definitely benefit. The poor would not have otherwise got loans, since the larger banks cannot take such risks as giving loans to the poor, since the fundamental premise of larger banks is that of collaterals, and the poor do not have collaterals. The poor hence with the help of the microfinancing group get the money and many times expertise too, invest the money in small enterprises, and grow the money. So over time, the poor become richer than what they originally were, despite the higher rates of interest they had to pay in the process.
Now let us look fairly at the concept of IPO of microfinancing.
The microfinancier sees the benefit of the business of microfinancing, not just to himself, but to the poor at large, and he feels the economic pressures to grow this business, so he can benefit more and thereby many more poor can benefit more. So he decides to involve more people who have capital to invest in microfinancing, which is his business. And he says, what better way than an IPO to involve a large set of rich people - lock stock and barrel. The rich look at it again as an investment of their money, and of course with a desirable side effect of each of them getting a brighter halo for their indirect benevolence to the poor. Nothing wrong with that too.
Now when the rich invest in an IPO, they expect competitive returns. Hence the pressure on the business, here the microfinancing company, comes now from the market. As long as the economics of the interest rate with the available large capital, spread out across a now possible large market works, everything is fine. The problem happens when the investors' greed increases and that thereby forces the microfinancing company to charge a higher interest rate on its target population, and the pressures on the poor for repayment corresponsingly increases, thereby lesser tolerance to delinquency in repayment, thereby having to employ recovery agents, who again need to get paid. Then this goes against the original fundamentals in which the company started, and also goes outside the original economic environment, thereby the poor start committing suicides again. The government then is forced to intervene, not again out of love for the poor and because of a higher moral standing, but for their own economics of vote banks. The government thereby offers protection to the poor, introduces new schemes for the poor, and the poor withdraw from the original microfinancing company who now went IPO and shift now to government schemes, the IPO returns diminish, the microfinancier becomes a failure, the government becomes popular, they get re-elected by the poor, then get under the influence of the lobby which had still financed the large part of the campaign, starts investing in other pro-rich areas, and hence the money and generosity to the poor has to be withdrawn. The poor then suffer again, then another well meaning microfinancier comes, sees benefit to the poor, then feels why not raise larger capital to serve larger masses of poor and also grow his business, thinks of an IPO and launches an IPO. A new generation starts debating on the morality of the IPO, while the economics of morality continues to turn in its sensible pace.
Morality is a consequence of economic forces by and large, whether we like it or not. Let us take the example of microfinancing.
Microfinancing is a concept of small loans, higher interests, more frequent re-payments and higher tolerance to delinquency in repayments because of genuine reasons of being unable to repay sometimes.
Who benefits in this game?
The financier defintely benefits because the interest rates are higher. The financier indeed should benefit because he needs increasing capital to invest further, and to grow his business of micro financing, and thereby cover larger cross-sections of the poor. Over time, the financier's target population spreads out further to a slightly higher economic level and hence larger coverage. This is plain law of physics anyway, since the water spreads equally across the lowest lying regions in its coverage, before the level of the water rises, and goes to wider areas.
Who else benefits?
The poor definitely benefit. The poor would not have otherwise got loans, since the larger banks cannot take such risks as giving loans to the poor, since the fundamental premise of larger banks is that of collaterals, and the poor do not have collaterals. The poor hence with the help of the microfinancing group get the money and many times expertise too, invest the money in small enterprises, and grow the money. So over time, the poor become richer than what they originally were, despite the higher rates of interest they had to pay in the process.
Now let us look fairly at the concept of IPO of microfinancing.
The microfinancier sees the benefit of the business of microfinancing, not just to himself, but to the poor at large, and he feels the economic pressures to grow this business, so he can benefit more and thereby many more poor can benefit more. So he decides to involve more people who have capital to invest in microfinancing, which is his business. And he says, what better way than an IPO to involve a large set of rich people - lock stock and barrel. The rich look at it again as an investment of their money, and of course with a desirable side effect of each of them getting a brighter halo for their indirect benevolence to the poor. Nothing wrong with that too.
Now when the rich invest in an IPO, they expect competitive returns. Hence the pressure on the business, here the microfinancing company, comes now from the market. As long as the economics of the interest rate with the available large capital, spread out across a now possible large market works, everything is fine. The problem happens when the investors' greed increases and that thereby forces the microfinancing company to charge a higher interest rate on its target population, and the pressures on the poor for repayment corresponsingly increases, thereby lesser tolerance to delinquency in repayment, thereby having to employ recovery agents, who again need to get paid. Then this goes against the original fundamentals in which the company started, and also goes outside the original economic environment, thereby the poor start committing suicides again. The government then is forced to intervene, not again out of love for the poor and because of a higher moral standing, but for their own economics of vote banks. The government thereby offers protection to the poor, introduces new schemes for the poor, and the poor withdraw from the original microfinancing company who now went IPO and shift now to government schemes, the IPO returns diminish, the microfinancier becomes a failure, the government becomes popular, they get re-elected by the poor, then get under the influence of the lobby which had still financed the large part of the campaign, starts investing in other pro-rich areas, and hence the money and generosity to the poor has to be withdrawn. The poor then suffer again, then another well meaning microfinancier comes, sees benefit to the poor, then feels why not raise larger capital to serve larger masses of poor and also grow his business, thinks of an IPO and launches an IPO. A new generation starts debating on the morality of the IPO, while the economics of morality continues to turn in its sensible pace.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Simple Truth
Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). This very effectively summarizes the problems now almost all religions are facing. The teachings of God are simple and straight. However, we complicate and make them confusing, since the simple commands affect us, and will cost us. Once we complicate the matters, we can live life the way we want and exploit and confuse the simpleminded.
We all desire to live according to God's will. However God's will has been clearly written in many places in the Bible. For instance, in Micah 6:8 it is written, "He has shown thee O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with Thy God?". It's simple. Do justice. Love mercy. Walk humbly. This does not need any major interpretation. If we touch every action of ours with these commands, we are living according to God's will. It's simple. Yet so tough to live out. Hence we complicate.
Or, we always want to know whether our job is according to God's will, or whether it is only the job of a priest which is "full-time" for God. What is job? Job is something we do to earn a living. For our needs. What does the Bible say? "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you". What is kingdom of God? Isaiah 65:17-25 describes beautifully God's kingdom. 1. "The voice of weeping shall be no more heard, nor the voice of crying". No more tears. For any reason. No hungry child. No crying orphan. No crying because of injustice. 2. "There won't be an infant who lives but a few days" - no more infant deaths. No under-nourished children, "or an old man who does not live out his years" - death will be only due to old age. Not because of sickness. Not because due to non availability of insurance someone is not able to afford a treatment! 3. "They will build houses and dwell in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat". People working and they enjoying the fruit of their labour. Not for their hardwork to result in mis-proportionate wealth for individuals or corporates. They themselves will enjoy the work of their hands. 4. "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox". The age of peace and harmony. No wars under the pretext of anything. No greed for another person's wealth. No avarice for another country's resources.
Now let's look at the question. Is my job "seeking God's kingdom" as described above? Let's analyse. First, list down the direct result/fruit of your job. Is this helping accumulate wealth in the wrong hands? Is it helping a cause that is enabling justice, or satisfying the basic needs of the world, for wiping tears? Second, list down the secondary impact of your job. Is it indirectly funding good activities, which otherwise could not have been done? Is the tax benefit going to a government who is in turn using it for the good of the world? Or are they using it for suppression, looting and conquering the world for greedy gains? Now, after listing down the primary and secondary impact of the job, classify these into two categories. A) Are these impacts helping establishment of God's kingdom? or B) Are these working against God's kingdom?
It's simple. Let's not complicate it.
We all desire to live according to God's will. However God's will has been clearly written in many places in the Bible. For instance, in Micah 6:8 it is written, "He has shown thee O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with Thy God?". It's simple. Do justice. Love mercy. Walk humbly. This does not need any major interpretation. If we touch every action of ours with these commands, we are living according to God's will. It's simple. Yet so tough to live out. Hence we complicate.
Or, we always want to know whether our job is according to God's will, or whether it is only the job of a priest which is "full-time" for God. What is job? Job is something we do to earn a living. For our needs. What does the Bible say? "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you". What is kingdom of God? Isaiah 65:17-25 describes beautifully God's kingdom. 1. "The voice of weeping shall be no more heard, nor the voice of crying". No more tears. For any reason. No hungry child. No crying orphan. No crying because of injustice. 2. "There won't be an infant who lives but a few days" - no more infant deaths. No under-nourished children, "or an old man who does not live out his years" - death will be only due to old age. Not because of sickness. Not because due to non availability of insurance someone is not able to afford a treatment! 3. "They will build houses and dwell in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat". People working and they enjoying the fruit of their labour. Not for their hardwork to result in mis-proportionate wealth for individuals or corporates. They themselves will enjoy the work of their hands. 4. "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox". The age of peace and harmony. No wars under the pretext of anything. No greed for another person's wealth. No avarice for another country's resources.
Now let's look at the question. Is my job "seeking God's kingdom" as described above? Let's analyse. First, list down the direct result/fruit of your job. Is this helping accumulate wealth in the wrong hands? Is it helping a cause that is enabling justice, or satisfying the basic needs of the world, for wiping tears? Second, list down the secondary impact of your job. Is it indirectly funding good activities, which otherwise could not have been done? Is the tax benefit going to a government who is in turn using it for the good of the world? Or are they using it for suppression, looting and conquering the world for greedy gains? Now, after listing down the primary and secondary impact of the job, classify these into two categories. A) Are these impacts helping establishment of God's kingdom? or B) Are these working against God's kingdom?
It's simple. Let's not complicate it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Spellcheck 2010
I was excited when I read Sainath's article in "The Hindu" yesterday that "In 1963, the government of Maharashtra ended famine forever in the state". Wow ! I never knew that. Maybe because of the famous green revolution in India, I thought. I have read about it. I have read about Operation Flood. Maybe because of all that.
When I read further, I realized how they achieved this was far more brilliant than that! They did it actually by passing a legislation to remove the use of the word "famine" from all the laws of the state! You close your eyes, open it again and read this. It is true. What a wonderful way, what an out of the box thinking as the modern day management gurus and corporates would say, to remove a problem. Wish the problem away and the problem goes away? Are we watching Shrek, the movie, where there is a fairy godmother to do these tricks? Or are we seeing our legislators in action?
But who among us is going to cast the first stone? A lot of my friends across the world still believe the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Many friends and leaders across the world have their own definition of democracy. I define democracy, therefore it shall. I remove the word famine, and goest forever famine. I declare that the beggars love begging and therefore the beggars do not want to come out of their wretched lives. I believe that Iraqi's love to fight more than they want what I have defined for them as democracy, and so woe unto them.
Who are we fooling? What happened to the metaphor of the ostrich dipping his head in the sand and the cat closing its eyes and drinking milk. We love our cocoons. It is comfortable. Cozy. No heat, no cold, it is wonderful in here. What if the worm in the cocoon thought that way? Where would the beautiful butterfly come out from?
Can we nurture the various cocoons around, so that we take care that the beautiful butterfly comes out of that? Don't kill the worms around because they are ugly. Don't wish away the real issues because they are inconvenient. Because they make our world different from the shining world we want it to be.
Let us ask Microsoft to come up with a new spellcheck and grammar check that removes all the inconvenient and ugly words? Why not delete the word 'conscience' from our hearts and minds? And then we shall live peacefully ever after.
When I read further, I realized how they achieved this was far more brilliant than that! They did it actually by passing a legislation to remove the use of the word "famine" from all the laws of the state! You close your eyes, open it again and read this. It is true. What a wonderful way, what an out of the box thinking as the modern day management gurus and corporates would say, to remove a problem. Wish the problem away and the problem goes away? Are we watching Shrek, the movie, where there is a fairy godmother to do these tricks? Or are we seeing our legislators in action?
But who among us is going to cast the first stone? A lot of my friends across the world still believe the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Many friends and leaders across the world have their own definition of democracy. I define democracy, therefore it shall. I remove the word famine, and goest forever famine. I declare that the beggars love begging and therefore the beggars do not want to come out of their wretched lives. I believe that Iraqi's love to fight more than they want what I have defined for them as democracy, and so woe unto them.
Who are we fooling? What happened to the metaphor of the ostrich dipping his head in the sand and the cat closing its eyes and drinking milk. We love our cocoons. It is comfortable. Cozy. No heat, no cold, it is wonderful in here. What if the worm in the cocoon thought that way? Where would the beautiful butterfly come out from?
Can we nurture the various cocoons around, so that we take care that the beautiful butterfly comes out of that? Don't kill the worms around because they are ugly. Don't wish away the real issues because they are inconvenient. Because they make our world different from the shining world we want it to be.
Let us ask Microsoft to come up with a new spellcheck and grammar check that removes all the inconvenient and ugly words? Why not delete the word 'conscience' from our hearts and minds? And then we shall live peacefully ever after.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Called aside
Mark Ch 7 verse 33 says "And he took him aside from the multitude". When God calls you for a special service, he calls you aside from the multitude. To be a disciple, you have to be out of the crowd. If you are part of the crowd, your identity is merged with that of the crowd. You are part of the mass hysteria, where you will be surprised in hindsight (if you ever get an opportunity for the hindsight amidst your busy life), about your own actions and reactions. How could I ever do like that, you may think. But remember, that was because you were part of the crowd. The crowd says, "This is what we all do, so what's different about you". The crowd very dangerously reminds us that you are part of the billions of people on this earth. The crowd hates your individuality. The crowd hates differences. Cults hate differences.
In yesterday's "The Hindu", Naveen Chawla has written an essence of Mother Teresa's life on her birth centenary. He writes, "In 1948 (after almost 20 years of teaching in the convent in Calcutta), in an even more cataclysmic turn of events, again entirely of her own making, she left the convent doors behind her for a vision of the streets".
I like the way Naveen Chawla has unambiguously put it - 'entirely of her own making'. There was a conscious decision she had to take. One step of faith that was needed on her part, which God would then bless.
Naveen Chawla continues "She had realized that this was where her true vocation lay, and she pursued this goal with diligence, even obstinancy".
Again, I like the choice of his word - obstinancy. Her passion was obstinate. What a wonderful privilege for the word 'obstinate' to be used in the context of the passion of this saint!
Naveen Chawla writes on, "She called 'loneliness' the 'leprosy of the West'. When asked how she could touch a leprosy sufferer and clean his sores, she said she could do it because for her that man was the suffering Jesus. 'I would not clean him for all the money in the world' said an observer to her. 'Nor would I', Mother Teresa replied, 'but I would do it for love of Him'. Her hands were always full, but comforting one individual at a time was more important than getting lost in numbers. She said later 'As long as we remain committed to the poorest of the poor and do not end up serving the rich, the work (for the poor) will prosper".
Thank God we have been privileged to have been alive while this saint walked on the earth, and in our country.
In yesterday's "The Hindu", Naveen Chawla has written an essence of Mother Teresa's life on her birth centenary. He writes, "In 1948 (after almost 20 years of teaching in the convent in Calcutta), in an even more cataclysmic turn of events, again entirely of her own making, she left the convent doors behind her for a vision of the streets".
I like the way Naveen Chawla has unambiguously put it - 'entirely of her own making'. There was a conscious decision she had to take. One step of faith that was needed on her part, which God would then bless.
Naveen Chawla continues "She had realized that this was where her true vocation lay, and she pursued this goal with diligence, even obstinancy".
Again, I like the choice of his word - obstinancy. Her passion was obstinate. What a wonderful privilege for the word 'obstinate' to be used in the context of the passion of this saint!
Naveen Chawla writes on, "She called 'loneliness' the 'leprosy of the West'. When asked how she could touch a leprosy sufferer and clean his sores, she said she could do it because for her that man was the suffering Jesus. 'I would not clean him for all the money in the world' said an observer to her. 'Nor would I', Mother Teresa replied, 'but I would do it for love of Him'. Her hands were always full, but comforting one individual at a time was more important than getting lost in numbers. She said later 'As long as we remain committed to the poorest of the poor and do not end up serving the rich, the work (for the poor) will prosper".
Thank God we have been privileged to have been alive while this saint walked on the earth, and in our country.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Before the next rain falls
Oh the rain, it brings back memories
Takes you to the past, makes you refreshed
How you played in the rain, with paperboats downstream
Oh the rain, it brings back sweet memories.
What a wonderful rain, you thought
Sipping your coffee with a book in your hand
The beauty of its pouring, oh how marvellous
Oh I wish the rain will never end!
"Oh, when will this cursed rain end", she shouted
My roof of cloth is all soaked
I'm tired of draining out the buckets of water
I've run out of my vessels, but still it pours
It's flowing down from the upper road, like an avalanche
Destroying everything that's on its way
My books and clothes all drenched, when will they ever dry?
Will my tears ever dry?
The rain keeps pouring, it doesn't care
These drops bring tears of joy to some, sorrow to others
The rain of blessings, the rain of despair
The rain of hope, the rain which comes as the end!
Now the rain stops, and I'm done with my coffee
My book's unfinished! Oh why did it stop so fast!
Let me get back to myself, my life, my all
Wishing it will rain again for my joy
Now she gathers the roof, drips it dry
The children come back from school, "Mom, what fun we had getting back"
"Come and help me dry our house", she screamed
Hoping she'll have a better roof, before the next rain falls
Takes you to the past, makes you refreshed
How you played in the rain, with paperboats downstream
Oh the rain, it brings back sweet memories.
What a wonderful rain, you thought
Sipping your coffee with a book in your hand
The beauty of its pouring, oh how marvellous
Oh I wish the rain will never end!
"Oh, when will this cursed rain end", she shouted
My roof of cloth is all soaked
I'm tired of draining out the buckets of water
I've run out of my vessels, but still it pours
It's flowing down from the upper road, like an avalanche
Destroying everything that's on its way
My books and clothes all drenched, when will they ever dry?
Will my tears ever dry?
The rain keeps pouring, it doesn't care
These drops bring tears of joy to some, sorrow to others
The rain of blessings, the rain of despair
The rain of hope, the rain which comes as the end!
Now the rain stops, and I'm done with my coffee
My book's unfinished! Oh why did it stop so fast!
Let me get back to myself, my life, my all
Wishing it will rain again for my joy
Now she gathers the roof, drips it dry
The children come back from school, "Mom, what fun we had getting back"
"Come and help me dry our house", she screamed
Hoping she'll have a better roof, before the next rain falls
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Acceptable Miracle?
"Sainthood for Mother Teresa awaits 'acceptable miracle'" - so the title of the newspaper article went about the Catholic church's stand on conferring sainthood to one of the greatest saints ever lived. Of course, let the Catholic church do its due diligence to search for the supernatural miracle. However, really, why do we have to look for evidence of a miracle in the life of a woman whose life itself was a miracle? Miracle is indeed what is improbable and what happened. And when a chain of the improbables happen which gives life to many, that is the most improbable of the most improbables. A miracle. A saint.
Her coming to India was a miracle. She was not an Indian.
Her leaving a reasonably comfortable convent teaching life was a miracle.
Her ability to touch and love the untouchables, the lepers, the beggars, the dying in filthy attires - that was a miracle.
Her ability to inspire many others to do the same as what she was doing was a miracle.
Her missionaries of charity organization getting set up near and far helping millions of the poor was a miracle.
Her ability to generate so much of funds collectively was a miracle.
Her simple ability to bring smiles on the faces of the hopeless was a miracle.
Her re-living the life of Jesus in His compassion and love was indeed a miracle.
Mother Teresa was herself a miracle, since even after her death, she is living through the many who are inspired by her and are continuing the work.
Let us praise and thank God for her life, while the church continues to search for the 'acceptable miracle'
Her coming to India was a miracle. She was not an Indian.
Her leaving a reasonably comfortable convent teaching life was a miracle.
Her ability to touch and love the untouchables, the lepers, the beggars, the dying in filthy attires - that was a miracle.
Her ability to inspire many others to do the same as what she was doing was a miracle.
Her missionaries of charity organization getting set up near and far helping millions of the poor was a miracle.
Her ability to generate so much of funds collectively was a miracle.
Her simple ability to bring smiles on the faces of the hopeless was a miracle.
Her re-living the life of Jesus in His compassion and love was indeed a miracle.
Mother Teresa was herself a miracle, since even after her death, she is living through the many who are inspired by her and are continuing the work.
Let us praise and thank God for her life, while the church continues to search for the 'acceptable miracle'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)