June 19, 2005
Bandler & the Buddha
Abstract: The author tries to connect the NLP and Vipassana style of meditation. The author argues that the all NLP modalities are not born equal. The contention is that the Kinesthetic is the primal modality through which rest of the modalities (Visual and Audio) express. By elevating the kinesthetic modality to primary position, there are new implications for NLP.
TOC:
* Introduction to NLP
* Where NLP got it right?
* Where NLP went wrong?
* A new model of NLP
* Introduction to Vipassana
* Theory behind Vipassana
* NLP & Vipassana
* What is next?
Introduction to NLP
NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) is one of greatest self-help tools developed in the recent past. One of the basic axioms of the NLP is that "map is not the territory". We experience the world through our own filters of language, beliefs and biases. The mental map we build of the world is not anywhere near the actual world itself.
The way we experience the world is through our senses. Our experiences could be represented in video, audio, kinesthetic, olfactory or gustatory (taste) representational systems. But for most of the people, the Video, Audio and Kinesthetic are the main representation systems. The representational systems are not mutually exclusive; each experience could consist of multiple systems. The representation systems are also called modalities.
Each of the modalities has submodalities. The picture you visualize in your head could be in color or in black & white; it could be located on left side of your head or right; it could be very intensive or feeble. Further distinctions of each of the modalities (representational systems) are called submodalities. Some examples of the Visual submodalities are color or black & white, framed or unbounded, whether yourself is in the picture or not, contrast, brightness, clarity, movement, size, speed of video. Some examples of Audio submodalities are stereo or mono, volume, timbre, location of the sound, distance from the sound, clarity. Some examples of kinesthetic submodalities are location, pressure, shape and weight.
Different people are good at different modalities. Some people experience the world intensely through Visual modality while others in Auditory. For one person, it could be V > A > K which means Video is more primary than Audio which is more primary than Kinesthetic. But for somebody else, this order could be A > V > K.
The main insight of the NLP is that by manipulating the submodalities of the experience, you could reduce the hold of the experience on you. Say you are scared of spiders or roller coaster rides; you can sit down and analyse the modality & submodalities of the experience. As soon as you think of roller coaster ride, you may have been visualizing certain video in your head. Analyse the pictures and video to see where it is located in your head, what color is it in, whether it is moving fast or slow etc. Now by manipulating these submodalities, you can loosen the fear of rides or the fear of the spiders.
If you want to gain further insight into NLP, there is tremendous amount of literature on the web and in print.
Where NLP got it right?
The basic insights on modalities and the techniques developed out of modality manipulation for self-help were great things. Techniques like swish pattern were very successful in helping people.
Where NLP went wrong?
To get the best out of NLP, it needs the help of external therapist. The NLP does not have in-built rigorous disciple to be used by an individual by himself. It requires the intervention of an external therapist who interprets, articulates and leads you to a solution.
NLP as a self-help tool failed since it lacked the formal inbuilt discipline needed for a serious spiritual/self-help path. To use any of the techniques (e.g. Swish Pattern) for self-help, it requires an enormous amount of unbiased objective analysis of oneself. (For me, after 3 years of experimentation with NLP, the addiction only turned into more & more reading of NLP literature rather than working to fix my problems. I felt at some point that I needed help from a therapist to make better progress).
A new model of NLP
My feeling is that NLP got wrong in understanding the representational systems or modalities (A, V, K). All three modalities are not different. There is only one primary modality, which is Kinesthetic. All other modalities express themselves through Kinesthetic. My insight is based on my experience with Vipassana style of meditation. So you just need to work on your K (kinesthetic) modality to fix any problem. However, the kinesthetic is the subtlest of all modalities. I try to explain below why Kinesthetic is the primary one.
Introduction to Vipassana
Vipassana is the meditation technique used by Theravada style of Buddhism. The Vipassana meditation consists of working on your bodily sensations to liberate your mind.
Vipassana is taught generally in a 10-day course. The first three days consists of focusing your awareness on your breath. By the end of the three days, the mind gets so acute that one will be able to observe the subtlest bodily kinesthetic sensations. After these three days, the student is taught to focus on the sensations throughout the body instead of just nasal area. The main thing is to develop equanimity to the bodily kinesthetic sensations.
Equanimity is what gives you the results. You are asked not to focus on the individual thoughts; you are not supposed to analyse the connection between a particular individual thought and the kinesthetic sensations thereof. The 10-day program basically instills the discipline to experience the bodily sensations without reacting to them. It is a very tough and hard work but if you do your work diligently, you can see that the deeper mental complexes evaporating from your mind.
Do we need a 10-day course to learn Vipassana? Can't we learn it just by reading a book? Possibly not. The path is so hard that anybody would need at least one 10-day course to instill the discipline and to understand the proper intent of the technique.
Theory behind Vipassana
We need to understand the Chain of Conditioned Arising or Causal Genesis to learn why & how the Vipassana technique works.
There are four mental processes or aggregates (khandha) which give rise to whole process of how our thinking process works:
1) Consciousness (Vinnana): The first process of the mind is the receiving part, which registers the occurrence of any input, physical or mental. It notes the raw data of experience without assigning labels. This is where you receive all the experiences of the world through your senses. You hear something or see something. There is no judgment of whether this is good or bad. Your friend just uttered some words but you haven't judged those words.
2)Perception/Recognition (Sanna): This is where you make judgment of the registered raw data. In the previous process, you merely heard or saw something in raw terms. But now in the current step, you are making judgment, assign labels & categories, evaluate whether it is good or bad. The words uttered by your friend in the previous process are evaluated now and labeled, as either they are good words or bad words. It basically filters the raw input and presents a colored image of reality. This judgment process itself is conditioned by one's past experience. We are evaluating the current raw input based on our past-accumulated reactions.
3)Kinesthetic sensations or feeling (Vedana): This is the subtlest of all four processes. A kinesthetic sensation or feeling arises in the body as soon as the first step happened i.e. as soon as the raw input is received. So long as the second process of evaluation of the input has not happened, the sensation remained neutral. But once a value is attached to the raw input, the kinesthetic sensation turns pleasant or unpleasant. The kinesthetic sensation is the bridge between mental and physical experience but itself is rooted in the physical body.
4)Reaction (Sankhara): If the kinesthetic sensation is pleasant, we wish to prolong or intensify the experience. If it is unpleasant, we wish to stop it. The mind reacts with liking or disliking. We are merely reacting to the bodily Kinesthetic Sensations (Vedana) but such a reaction is so powerful that it determines our future conditioning to the experience. The greatest insight to take is that we are not really reacting to the valuation we gave in the second step (i.e. whether your friend's uttering were praise or abuse), but rather we are reacting to the physical kinesthetic sensations manifested in third step. The new Sankharas form the basis by which you will judge and evaluate the future raw inputs. And thus the cycle of conditioning continues.
Now what? We keep going through this loop of forming new Sankharas and the Chain of Conditioned Arising continues in a loop. But here comes the insight of the Vipassana. By learning to observe the Sensation (Vedana) objectively, one can break the chain of conditioned response. Basically we are breaking the conditioning of the registered experience forever. The Perception/Recognition (Sanna) instead turns into Wisdom (Vinnana).
You are not supposed to focus on the thoughts but instead on the sensations. It is very difficult to link what thoughts caused what physical sensations. But that is the origin of discipline in Vipassana. Normally it is very tough to focus on thoughts for novices to trace them to the resulting kinesthetic sensations. (But I believe, one can learn such prowess as one practices more & more).
Why is the technique so subtle and why is it not so self-evident? Everybody needs an explanation of why and how a technique works. But the Vipassana is an experiential technique, not an intellectual experience. You don't need to understand how it works to get the benefits. Even my explanation of the technique is only an approximation. One only needs to go through the 10-day course to experience the benefits of it.
NLP & Vipassana
Have you ever done a yoga asana on a stressful day? A single yoga asana seems to relax the stress and get you into good moods. Even the tai chi focuses on bodily kinesthetic movements as spiritual tool. The salvation lies in the human body. The kinesthetic sensations talked about in Vipassana are nothing but the knots in our psychosomatic field.
There is one subtle difference in NLP and Vipassana. Vipassana never focuses on an individual thought and resultant kinesthetic sensations. It is not humanly possible for a novice to connect the individual thoughts and the resulting the kinesthetic sensations. Vipassana frowns upon such an experiment itself. But I believe, once the practitioner gains more experiences, it is possible to do such thing. The NLP addresses a certain particular psychological problem while the Vipassana addresses the deeper complexes. I don't think, it is possible to fix your phobia of spiders in a Vipassana sitting. But a deeper surgery of psychological complexes is only possible in Vipassana.
NLP indulges in analytical approach to identify the root causes of the problem. In Vipassana however, the fact that you are uncomfortable with a certain thing is good enough. Rest is hard work of equanimously observing the physical sensations without reacting. The underlying complex reasons come up the surface and evaporate by the exercise. You are expected to hold your equanimity during the meditation; neither crave for more of the similar sensations nor run away from them. Otherwise you are only strengthening the conditioning.
What is next?
There is need for more research into kinesthetic modality as the tool for NLP. I would urge the NLP community to give a try of Vipassana mediation. I believe, Vipassana can complement nicely the work NLP or even replace NLP as the ultimate spiritual tool. If you want to experience the technique, one can sign up for a free course at http://www.dhamma.org/. The course itself is free.
Posted by nachiketa at 02:08 PM | Comments (0)
June 12, 2005
Call for "secret society" as a tool for activism in India
TOC:
* The Call
* What is a secret society ?
* The need
* Historical examples
* The efficacy of a secret society
* Why should it not be open to general masses ?
* Why does it have to be secretive ?
* Problems with secret society as a tool
* Conclusion
The Call
How many times have you thought, "if only I have the power to fix this corruption, if only I can kill this bloody politician to rid of his evil influence on the system, if I only become the prime minister with absolute majority in parliament to clean the system" ? I have heard a lot of people even wishing for dictatorship to fix the system; the democracy is too noisy and the masses are too docile.
Do I want to join a political party to fix the system ? The path is cumbersome and messy. Do I want to join an NGO (non-governmental organisation) to fix the system ? The NGOs are too timid to solve the burning problems. The answer is "Secret Society".
The able, brilliant and concerned citizens need to form secret societies around the chosen goals and execute them fastidiously. The secret society is a more efficient form compared to either political party or an NGO.
What is a secret society ?
A secret society is a social organization where the members conceal the activities of the society. The membership in the society is not open to the general public. Most of the times, the membership to the club is possible only at the invitation of the organisation. The society picks the members who best fit the goals of the society. The initiation ceremony and the activities of the society are concealed from the general public. The members are sworn to hold the society's secrets by an oath.
One form could be vigilantes which are militias who attempt to enforce the law by taking the law into their own hands. As we many a times see in fiction & movies, the vigilantism often occurs when the population is frustrated with the complex and seemingly unfair court procedures that apparently allow the bad guys to walk free or when the organised law enforcement breaks down.
Historically there have been instances of many secret societies in the western society. The secret societies could be legal or illegal organisations. But what I am advocating is ofcourse for a society which does not violate the law.
A secret society could even work as a "think tank" with additional responsibility of influencing the public opinion from behind the scenes.
The need
India is in dire need of tall leaders of the stature of Gandhi who can fix the existing system. We need a leader who can fix the corruption, reform the system of injustices, set a vision and inspire the nation out of morass. The problems are too complex to be solvable by any of the existing cadre of political leadership. Rather, the existing leadership itself happens to be the origin of the problem.
A lot could be achieved by NGOs (Non government organisations). But inherently, the structure of social service organisation is weak which renders it too timid to address the complex issues like casteism, religious strife or corruption.
Historical examples
The freemasons is a successful fraternal organisation which survived the centuries of existence. The members of the freemasonry share common ideals of moral and metaphysical values. There are a lot of conspiracy theories of how freemasons influence and control the world to bring a new world order. The famous freemasons include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt, Benjamin Franklin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Winston Churchill, Cecil B DeMille, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Alexander Fleming, Henry Ford, Rudyard Kipling, General McAruthur, Thomas J Watson and so on.
The Bilderberg Group is a secretive and international association of powerful people from Western Europe and North America who meet every year in Netherlands. The original intention of the group was to increase the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, the group's steering committee picks an invitation list of 100 names. The agenda of the meeting is kept secret.
The Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller of over 300 citizens of Europe, Japan and North America to promote closer cooperation between these areas.
There are even malign secret societies like Klu Klux Klan (KKK) which spearheaded white supremacy and targeted black killings. Any radical, extremist and terrorist organisation also would fall under the "secret society" category.
The efficacy of a secret society
A committed group of individuals can achieve more than a single individual. However such group should not be too huge which removes its agility to act.
Why not just an individual ? The amount of results achievable in certain areas by a single individual is small. Even if certain things can be achieved by an individual, some of the moral challenges are too oppressive for a single individual's spirit. A group can sustain and nurture the faith in the goal in a better way.
If you are fighting an issue, imagine what all you could achieve if only you have a band of 10 journalists, 10 lawyers, 10 civil servants, 10 politicians, 10 intellectuals and 10 fired up youth on your side.
Why should it not be open to general masses
It is very tough to maintain the secrecy of the charter & activities of huge organisation. A small organisation can achieve better agility and discipline. Invitation based organisation has benefits for efficiency of the effort.
Why does it have to be secretive ?
There are certain activities which are tough to take stand in public. It is very tough to take a stand on sensitive issues like removing a religious place built by crooks on the public roads.
Problems with secret society as tool
There is a possibility that these organisations can spawn really harmful organisations which can foster communal hatred or terrorism. Who is going to decide what is right and what is wrong for the society in general ? Are political assassinations a choice for an organisation? At some point, if a certain organisation is found violating the law, should an individual member be held punishable? Yes, the individual members are liable for themselves if they are found breaking the law even if they commit them at the instance of the organisation. It is your choice to join an organisation or not. It is your duty to join an organisation if you firmly believe so. Not only the nuns and saints have the callings. Listen to the callings of your soul. I am not here to tell you what is a right cause. I am only espousing the "secret society" as a tool to further the cause you believe in.
Conclusion
Society evolves through dialectic process of opposites. Activism (of whatever kind) is better than the passivity and fatalism. Now it is your choice.
Posted by nachiketa at 07:02 PM | Comments (6)
June 05, 2005
Case for a new language for India
Abstract: The author argues for creation of a new spoken & written language for the usage as a national language for India. The contention is that the new language would unite, invigorate and rekindle the vibrancy of India as a nation.
TOC:
* The problem of many languages
* The proposal
* Arguments for it ?
* Arguments against it ?
* Criteria for a new script
* Criteria for a new language
* How do we do it ?
* Is it worth it ?
The problem of too many languages
India has so many languages and dialects along with so many scripts (lipi). If you are traveling from one part of India to the other, you can probably survive with English or a bit of Hindi. But you can't read the local sign boards nor participate in a vernacular conversation.
Even for the administrative purposes, there needs to be a common national lingua franca. English and to some extent Hindi have done a reasonable job so far; but the demands to learn English to advance in the society has created an elite class alienated from the bottom.
The language issue has also played an anti-nation-building role. The identity derived from linguistic roots has subverted to some extent the sense of single nation.
If India needs to make progress in the new century, it has to make strides with the scientific development too. The development of science again asks for a common scientific jargon. None of our current languages including Hindi have a critical mass against English for an expression of scientific thought. Probably English can co-exist with local languages as the vehicle of advanced sciences; but the dichotomy of English and local language is not a good basis for bottom-up development of the country.
The proposal
The proposal is to create and develop a new language for India which can replace the local & national languages over a period of time.
Isn't that one heck of blasphemous unholy proposition? To create a new language ? Aren't the languages supposed to be passed to us from an higher authority ? Well, the languages are just the tools of communication. And they evolved over a period of time. There is nothing wrong to imagine creating a new language.
Well, people have constructed a lot of artificial languages all over world. For example, Esperanto published in 1887 by Dr. L. L. Zamenhof is one of reasonably successful languages. Esperanto was conceived to facilitate communication between different lands and cultures. Our own president Abdul Kalam is supposed to be well versed in Esperanto. Esperanto is a minimal language designed to serve its purpose. But what we are proposing here is a full fledged language on par with current Indian languages including English.
The plan of agenda is to create first a common modern scientific script to replace various current scripts. At this stage, the various languages are in tact but they make use of a single lipi (script). Imagine a time where at any place in India, you could read any publication, newspaper, sign board or postal addresses, probably even if you can't understand the content fully. The next stage is to work on the new language in all its glory: common words & grammar.
Arguments for it
One argument for a having a single common language is for the national integration. Having a single spoken and written language for whole of India (and probably along with the eliminating of castes) would unite India as a single nation.
There are huge economic benefits too. With such a huge population, a single language would soon attain the critical mass needed to withstand the onslaught of English for literature, arts, movies etc. We would have critical enough mass to attract publication of scientific works too.
The new language will definitely rejuvenate the spirit of India. Call it Bharati, call it Indica or call it by any specification number; the new language would definitely rekindle the sleeping Indian soul.
Arguments against it
Isn't my cultural identity destroyed with this new language ? Yes, probably the narrow-minded identity will be destroyed, but the culture as a whole will not be. Most of India shares common cultural themes albeit minor differences. A common language would hurry the cultural integration. As a matter of fact, we could protect the Indian culture against the inevitably impending western cultural imperialism.
Why can't we just use Hindi as national language ? Would it not save lot of effort creating a new language from scratch ? Using any existing Indian language would invite resistance from rest of the groups. More over, the sense of empowerment achieved through creation of new language would be a soothing balm in the struggle to regain the ancient glory of India.
Why can't we use Sanskrit as national language ? Isn't it ancient and isn't it very capable for the needs ? Yes and no. Sanskrit is a literary elite language and never worked as language of common people. Because of Sanskrit's rigorous inflexible grammatical requirements, the common folks have tended to use Prakrit'ic languages for everyday use. For example, Pali is one such language during Buddhist revolutionary days. Initial Buddhism (Theravada style) emphatically chose Pali for expressing its literature because Pali was more closer to common people than Sanskrit. Apart from Pali, there were so many variations of Sanskrit from which other current Indian languages evolved. The summary is that Sanskrit is a rigorous language probably not suitable as a replacement candidate.
Then why can't we use English as the national language ? English is an excellent and successful language in international domain. Probably we can use it as administrative, scientific and link language but definitely can't serve as replacement for all the existing Indian languages. There are so many cultural themes which probably will better suit only an Indian language.
If all existing languages are replaced by a common single language, what would happen to great works & great thinkers of my current language ? No, they are not going to be destroyed. Rather they are going to be revitalized. I am sure all the old great works of Kalidasa will be translated into our new language as has been done into so many current languages. Now we would have bigger and better pool of intellectuals, writers, poets going forward. Isn't it wonderful to have the greats of Masti, Tagore, xxx, xxx sharing their minds to whole of India rather than sharing only with smaller audience of their own language.
Criteria for new script
One has to distinguish the script from the language. The script or lipi is the set of alphabets and their corresponding rules for expressing the language in a written form. In contrast, the language is a bigger bowl; it consists of words which stand for things & grammar rules which combine words to form sentences. Probably, it makes sense to create a new national script well before attempting to create a new language as a whole.
The criteria for a national script are aesthetics, simplicity, expressibility. Probably digital automation could be one requirement but probably should not weigh too much since the fast pace of technology evolution can do justice without requiring inventing a new script just for automation purposes. One great characteristic of Indian languages compared to other world languages is that it is phonetic: what you pronounce is what you write. [There are some exceptions to this in some Indian languages e.g.. there is no separate letters for "k" and "g" sounds in Tamil.] But for most part, Indian scripts are phonetic. Probably we need to retain the phonetic character in the new script too.
As contrast, Chinese is not phonetic but a symbolic language; the English is not a phonetic language too. [ In English, both the words "know" and "no" are pronounced in same way. ] Probably we should continue the tradition of phonetic script still in the new language.
There is one more important characteristic to Indian scripts. Consonants in most of the language morph their shape based on the next vowel or next blending consonant. For example, basic shape of consonant "k" undergoes transformation when it becomes "ki" or "kyi". But some of the south Indian languages (e.g.. Tamil and Malayalam) don't undergo such transformation. Probably non-morphic nature is more suitable for simplicity and automation.
Criteria for the new language
The new language should definitely try to incorporate the most general common words from all of the languages. For example, variations of "prem" is used in most of Indian languages for the word "love". So one criterion is to leverage common words found in most languages.
The other criterion is that the language should be usable by common folks. The grammar & rules should not be strict and inflexible. At the same stroke, the language should be usable by poets and artists too.
And the language should be evolvable. The language should evolve based on needs and times.
A language defines the extent of what you can think. Language is the tool through which we understand the world. Without the symbols of language, there is nothing in this world, not even the peacefulness suggested by Jiddu's call to destroy the symbolism. As has been articulated by George Orwell in "1984", a language can also limit the scope of thinking. So our new language should be capable of expressing all that has been possible so far in this world and beyond such possibilities too.
How do we do it ?
Yes, it is doable. All we need is vision and will. It is doable over few decades of time period. Few decades or even a century for such a noble effort is a short term in the history of a nation.
Is it worth the effort ?
Is it worth the effort in terms of social and economic costs ? I believe, such an effort is worth it. The new language coupled with reorganizing states on non-linguistic basis and eradication of caste system is going to churn out a new strong, vibrant nation.
Some people can extrapolate and ask for next level of evolution. Why should we try to focus on a narrow national identity ? Why not work towards an international language ? Well, it is doable. The concept of national identity itself is silly (at least as per people like Tagore). We are probably humans first and then Indians next. I don't have a very good answer to this question. But I can only affirm that India with such an ancient bowl of knowledge and distinct cultural flavor would deserve a common language of its own. India has been an island (remember an island) of vast amount of distinct cultural evolution. Most of the themes are unique to Indian sub continent. But this vast pool of development is more or less common across all current Indian languages. The Indian identity doesn't deserve a seclusion based on the language.
I would just say, it is worth it..
Just imagine, how would you feel peeping into an alternative future where such a thing has already been accomplished in India? For myself, I would feel good & would feel proud..
Posted by nachiketa at 12:39 AM | Comments (1)
June 04, 2005
State of public toilets in Indian society
Abstract: Author tries to highlight the appalling state of toilets in public places in India; also proposes if and what can be done about it.
TOC:
* The immensity of the problem
* State of things
* What can be done ?
* Can it be done ?
The immensity of the problem
Imagine you are traveling through an Indian city and suddenly you have to attend to a nature call. Look around to find a nearest toilet. Either you would not find enough toilets in public places or whatever you find is really in bad condition.
What is the nature and root cause of such a bad state of affairs as far as the toilets in public spaces are concerned ?
Recently the author has heard of a poignant story of a rural visitor to Hyderabad city trying to find an urinal for his pregnant wife. They had to walk around for couple of miles after being turned around in few restaurants. Finally the man had to stand guard while she relieved in a corner of a street. This incident makes me really uncomfortable on our achievements as a nation when we couldn't address probably a silly but such an important civilized requirement. The state of toilets in public places really shows the mark of a civilized society.
Public toilets along with drainage and sewage systems express the state of the civilization. What use is to boast if the ancient Harappa had public sewage system while I can't to find a decent place to urinate in 21st century Bombay.
Whatever the toilets you find in few places, the state of their maintenance including cleanliness, flushing, water availability and graffiti on them is shameful. I am not sure of what kind of a feeling a foreign traveler would go through when he visits a public toilet in India, but I am sure this is not an acceptable situation for our own citizens at home. This is not just a question of aesthetics and convenience but also the question of health risks.
Probably relieving by the side of road is better alternative to most of the men, but what about women population ? Even today, most of the rural folks still don't use toilets at home but rather head towards woods with water tumbler in hand. Though my focus in the current article is limited to public places in urban settings, we still need to address the rural toilet issue but probably in a different article.
State of things
Currently some of the railway stations and bus stations have implemented "pay per use" toilets. The reason for payment they put forward is that the payment lets them achieve a clean environment. The first question propping in most people is why do we need to pay. Aren't we paying for the bus service/train service already which discount the usage of toilets? Even though the idea of fee for usage is irritating for most people, probably this is the first step.
Some of state governments have tried the concept of Sulabh Complex; the idea is to open up more number of toilets & bathrooms all over the city for use at a fee. Probably this needs to go to next step.
Other positive direction is where the high end shops and high end restaurants are opening up toilets in their facilities. But these still don't address adequately the needs since I am arguing for everybody and not just for rich class of consumers.
What can be done ?
What can be done ? A great lot can be done. The first proposal is to pass a law mandating any business working in public domain to provide toilet facilities. What I mean by public domain is that any business dealing with goods & service offerings to public. Probably this does not include a factory which has closed premises for its employees. The list would include any public place like shops, petrol bunks, restaurants, movie theaters, hospitals and even the non-commercial temples.
The law should allow for grace period by which all businesses should implement or a time table for a phased implementation. But after the law kicks in, there is no excuse but to withdraw the licenses for businesses which don't comply.
Again, the facilities are not meant only to their customers but for any by-passers too on the street. Any business which does not discriminate between the class of customers should not also discriminate the usage of toilets.
The law should allow "right to toilet usage". The law should allow any by-passers to use the toilet of your business on a fair use policy. They could even file a legal complaint for not keeping it clean. The semantics of "fair use" could be tricky but these can be worked out.
One concern we may hear is that, if we open the gates for everybody, how should a business get a sense of control ? Aren't the people from the street going to spoil it ? Probably yes and probably no. But a business can not discriminate based on whether a customer buys some goods or services from them for the usage of toilet. Another thing to note is that the toilet usage etiquette (eg. not writing on walls, flushing properly etc) would increase if only people get to find more and more toilets in public places.
Let us measure the "number of public toilets per thousand of population", not just the "number of telephones per thousand of population".
Another concern people can raise is why should the businesses pay for such service. Well, the businesses are not paying for them. It is you, the consumer who is paying for them by purchasing stuff from the businesses. Business shall extract that extra expense finally out of your pocket. Well, what does it mean ? It means that things you buy are going to be bit costly because of small contributions diverted to the toilet maintenance. But this is like any other public "common-greater-good" project.
Instead of mandating by law, can't we let the market place to determine based on the customer base ? Probably yes, but nothing short of government law is going to fix the problem effectively.
Can it be done ?
Yes, it can be done as long as the leadership shows the vision and will to do it.
As an inspiration, look at "Americans with Disabilities Act" of 1990. Among so many other provisions, this act mandated all businesses to provide access to wheelchairs in every floor and every building no matter what. Lot of businesses had resistance but they had to implement any way at huge economic and social cost. Well, one could start with usual skepticism that we are Indians and not Americans.
Well, great problems warrant greater solutions. Just imagine, how would you feel peeping into an alternative future where such thing has already been accomplished in India ? For myself, I would feel good & proud..
Posted by Melody at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)
Introduction
Who am I ?
Hello World.. My name is "Nachiketa v0.1" (i.e. Nachiketa Version 0.1). Well, that is my pen name. Why "Nachiketa v0.1" ? The first name Nachiketa is inspired by the character from Katha Upanishad. By choosing Nachiketa as the first name, I hope & wish to emulate the spirit of Nachiketa in search of truth. The last name "v0.1" stands for "version 0.1". Yes, that is current version of myself. Do the people have versions just like man-made objects ? I believe, they do. By choosing to version myself, I would like to emphasize that there is no absolute knowledge. And any truth is contextualized and it evolves.
The purpose of my current journey is to learn something from others & the world. By exposing my current understanding to the world, I hope to achieve a better clarity to my own thoughts. By eliciting feedback from the world, I hope to refine myself.
Current version of me
Each version is snapshot of my current opinions, worldview, beliefs & understanding. My current version is 0.1. I plan to increase the version number whenever there is too much of incremental change in my worldview, beliefs & understanding.
Wiki versus Blog format
I believe that a mixed medium of wiki & blog is a better tool to represent one's state of mind and track it through time. Even though the current effort is in blog format, I plan to use as much as wiki model. Whenever I get a new insight/understanding on the same topic, I want to edit the existing post instead of dispatching it as a new post. So all the articles would represent a snapshot at that time of my opinions, world view, beliefs & understanding.
Categories of my current writings
1. Ramblings on self-help
2. Contemplations on India
3. Ponderings on human existence & human condition
4. Musings, tidbits & unanswered questions
Ramblings on self-help
Some like to use word "spirituality". For me, the word "self-help" always conveyed a better connotation, for I indulged mostly in Self-help efforts.
I would like to warn the reader of my current mental dispositions, for they definitely color my writings: I am an agnost (or rather atheist), I am a naturalist, I am a post-humanist. I would always prefer analytical approach over faith.
The kind of tools of trade which interest me are Sartre's existentialism, NLP, Stephen Covey, Mediation etc.
Contemplations on India
Well, I am an Indian by birth. The identity of "Indian" does sound too narrow before my other identity that I am "Human". At any point of time, I would like to forego my Indian identity in favour of identity that I belong to bigger community called Humans. But the Indian identity seem to be inescapable, for I do spend huge amounts of mental cycles reflecting on India.
India has had a glorious and noble past in history. But I am not self delusionalist. We did and do have our share of problems which plagued many a civilization.
Though my writings are mostly regarding the current & future India, my intention is not to belittle India's great philosophic & spiritual contributions to the world in the past history. (I may sound a pessimist for spending mostly on the downside instead of celebrating India; but trust me, I am great optimist in a much greater future for India).
Ponderings on human existence & human condition
Musings, tidbits & unanswered questions
Posted by nachiketa at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)
It is the productivity
Abstract: The author argues that the root cause of the Indian (or third-world) poverty is neither the corruption nor the huge population. But the problem lies in meager growth in productivity levels.
TOC:
* The problem of under development
* It is not the corruption
* It is not the population either
* It is the productivity
* Some ponderings on the subject
The problem of under-development
Even after achieving 50 years of Independence, the rate of social and economic development is not up to any Indian's satisfactory levels. What has gone wrong with India ? There seems to be so many divergent opinions. Some point to the huge population and some point to corruption in public life. Some point to Nehruvian socialism. And some point to mis-directed capitalism.
The development is so slow that it paralyzes the hopes of best optimists. It generates a sense of skepticism and helplessness in the minds of population. The Indian culture is already predisposed to concept of fate/karma; the current state of affairs reinforces a dis-empowering mode of thought: "Nothing happens in India." This kind of fatalism and acceptance of failure feeds into the system which discourages/penalizes even the people who genuinely attempt to change the system.
What is the root cause of the India's insufficient development ?
It is not the corruption
At first glance, corruption looks like the most probable root cause. But in my opinion, the corruption probably contributes or aggravates the situation but it is not the root cause.
Corruption irritates. And corruption does skew the system. It may favour an unoptimal agent of production. It may give a chance to corrupt contractor with dubious track record. But I believe, the corruption is not a root cause but one of the aggravating factors. Some times, it looks like that the under-development is root cause of corruption, rather than being other way around.
I am not saying that stopping of corruption would not help the system. It sure would help. I am sure all those funds which are channeled into unproductive pockets of corrupt officers and politicians would help towards the development. But getting blinded by the hope that the corruption would fix all the problems is wrong too.
For example, on a road project, assume that we eliminate 100% of corruption and channel all the funds to actual building process. Even then, the funds wouldn't be sufficient to build enough roads to the western standards of development as long as we are still stuck with low per head productivity levels.
It is not the huge population either
And neither the population is the root cause of under-development. More the population means more teachers, more police, more doctors, more janitors, more working hands, more production, more goods, more services, more jobs (and even more politicians).
Most of the people get stuck with the question: how do we provide education for such huge population ? Or how do we feed such huge population etc.?
The huge population becomes a liability only if we start putting pressure on land and resources. We did pretty well on the food sufficiency and we could do better. One could argue that the natural resources are not in proportion to such huge population. But which nation on earth does have all the natural resources abundant for its needs ? Look at Japan; the population density of Japan per square kilometer is much more than that of India. The land is not a problem at all as has been proved by Japanese experience. In my opinion, the big population is an asset rather than being a liability.
It is the productivity
In my opinion, the real problem is the insufficient growth of productivity. What is productivity and how is it the root cause of poverty ?
Productivity is the amount of goods & services produced per head (per capita). Looking from a different perspective, it also means the amount of goods & services consumed per head (per capita).
The reasons for slow productivity gains are too many: probably our mis-directed government policies or inherently unmaterialistic & fatalistic Indian culture.
Try to compare three three systems: an African rural village, Indian rural village and a Western urban setting. These are three gradations in productivity landscape. One can see generally that African village is using more manual labour with low productivity while an Indian village is little better off.
So now the question is whether the African village can jump to western levels by pumping technology and capital into it? Apparently so far the conclusion is that the development is mostly incremental. An incremental productivity raising tool/practice is accepted which in turn makes the road for next level by enriching the demand through creation of better purchasing power. If you want to skip the middle level and directly jump to highest level through pumping more capital and technology, it always fails because of low absorption rates in the system; most of the time this results in destroying the traditional livelihood and endangering the whole path itself.
The productivity growth is not always linear incremental; there are possibilities of huge jumps in productivity levels with judicious planning and vision. For example, better and relevant education/information will do a lot to productivity level.
The productivity gains happen because of better processes, better tools/machinery usage, better technology usage and some times these requiring employment of more capital.
The main reason put forward by lot of skeptics is that we have so much of surplus labour and won't the usage of machinery render the labour force out of work ? This is a complex issue to understand.
I don't think, I have a sufficient evidence to refute it; the incremental addition of machinery will put some pressure on labour but the additional productivity gained in the process is going to create more avenues for the replaced labour else where. I have an example of such scenario from rural experience from Andhra Pradesh. Ten years back, most of the agriculture in Telangana has employed pure labour. But over a period of time, the tractors, machine ploughs, xxxx have been introduced. I used to get scared every time some new machinery got introduced into system fearing that it is going to damage the labour force. But what I witnessed was that all along this transition, the labour wages have been climbing up and the labour is productively employed in some other sectors outside the agriculture.
Other argument people raise is what happens when the productivity levels are so high that one capitalist can produce enough for the whole of population with the help of tools ? Won't the rest of the population lose the means of economic power ? There is a fallacy behind this argument; the false assumption is that the human needs (demand for goods & services) are finite. But in reality, human needs are infinite. As Gandhi pointed out that "there is enough for every body's need but not enough for every body's greed." The human greed for better life and luxuries is infinite and those previously unimagined needs are going to keep industries and labour force employed in those sectors.
There is another subtle point to observe along with the gain in productivity levels. The thing that balances the production and consumption is the distribution of wealth created. It is the responsibility of government policy which should take care of proper wealth distribution. But government should not achieve this by regulating the production & consumption but by creating forces to channelize these activities into a better balance.
Some Misc Notes on the subject
Another general complaint we hear is that there is not enough purchasing power in the system which rewards the entrepreneurs to create new products & services. This is a chicken and egg problem. Arguing the other way around, there is not much of purchasing power in the system because there is not enough of production which employs those labour.
I think, the fine balance is always to go at incremental steps where the incremental gains obtained in the system helps offsetting the shifts in labour force.
The other thing to be careful is of falling trap to copying the western style of production means. The western economies didn't advance to their current stage in one huge leap but through many incremental shifts. Since currently the western countries are advanced way beyond our levels, the structural changes resulting from blind copying of western models will be painful to adjust. It doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel but sometimes we may have to do just that.
Posted by nachiketa at 05:25 PM | Comments (1)
Warning on meditation
Meditation is experiential
Meditation is not an intellectual exercise. Understanding why or how it works is not necessary to gain from meditation. Such an exercise is rather impediment to your progress on the path of meditation. Meditation is a experiential process. You have to experience it. The only way you gain anything from it is to practice it.
Just do it
There are so many meditation techniques. Most of them achieve the same thing. Each technique appeals to people of various temperaments and beliefs. Progress on some technique may be faster based on your current faith & belief set. Some may suit people with faith in god. Some suit people without any faith in god.
Survey couple of them and pick one which appeals to you. Then just dive in. Just do it.
Posted by nachiketa at 05:23 PM | Comments (1)
General notes on meditation
Some general notes on meditation
* Biggest warning on meditation: Meditation is not an intellectual (analytical) exercise. Meditation is Experiential exercise. You gain only by actually practicing. Understanding how and why it works is not necessary. Such an exercise works as impediment to your progress on the meditation path. The only way out is to actually practice it. That is it.. Go and practice it.. Don't even try to read what I am saying here. Pick a technique which suits your temperament; then get up and go practice it.
* Buddhism is the only religion which does not talk about God. (Later schools of Buddhism have converted Buddha himself into God but the original Buddhism as it is called "Theravada or Hinayana school" never talks about god. Buddhism does not claim that god does not exist either. It just does not talk about it. The central theme of Buddhism is you (i.e. human condition). The basic starting point is that "human existence/condition has suffering". Then it goes on about characterizing such suffering and showing the path out of the suffering. That is it.
Posted by nachiketa at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)