Between a rock and a hard place

An enlightening (and frustrating) article by P. Sainath. He is an authority on state of Indian agriculture, and has travelled extensively throughout the country, documenting the disgraceful mess created by this entity called “the Indian government”. One of the most popular books he has written, which will send shivers up your spine is, “Everyone loves a good drought“.


19 April 2008 – The bailout of Bear Stearns by the U S Federal Reserve was worth $30 billion. That is roughly twice the ‘loan waiver’ given to millions of Indian farmers. The latter move has been scorched by the ideologues of the free market and neo-liberalism as ‘fiscal insanity’ or ‘irreversible damage.’ The media – even those mildly critical – have been far more muted in their criticism of the ‘rescue’ of Bear Stearns. That is, one of the biggest global investment banks and securities trading and brokerage firms anywhere on the planet.

Think of it: a tiny Wall Street cabal which gave itself bonuses worth billions of dollars just weeks before the crash gets a bailout of Rs.1,19,520 crores. That’s almost double the Rs.60,000 crores given to tens of millions of farmers in dire straits in this country. A country where one farmer kills himself every 30 minutes in despair. The problems of farmers do not even begin to end with that waiver.

On the other hand, a bunch of thugs in tuxedos who did pretty much whatever they wanted, laying a minefield across the world, have got the waiver of a lifetime (or many lifetimes). The lifejacket for the bank does not require the return of their bonuses. So much so that Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings and a staunch free marketer, calls it “Socialism for the rich.” In his words “the Federal Reserve is using taxpayer money to buy a bunch of Bear Stearns traders’ Maseratis.” He points out that hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent to bail out Wall Street as a whole. The theologians of the global market are between a rock and a hard place. Hypocrisy has rammed into reality.

Three of the basic principles the believers of corporate-led globalisation swear by have been so eloquently summed by Professor James Galbraith Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin. One: all successes are global. Two: all failures are national. Three: the market is beyond reproach.

This is election year. So we see Minister after Minister, the latest being Kapil Sibal, tell us that the price rise and food shortages in India are the result of global factors.
What a lovely waiver!
Protect at home, preach abroad

For over a decade, we were assured that everything good that ever happened was because we had embraced corporate-led globalisation. All the negative effects visible were the result of our own national inertia and corruption. And of course, the market would heal all wounds. The notion of state meddling in economic matters was blasphemy. Now the nations feeding us this rot – which we recite by rote – are nationalising banks, bailing out brigands and pouring in funds to stop factories from closing down.

Now having to blame ‘global factors’ for the price rise at home must seem a bit galling. Failures at home? Er, well, you see, let’s not go there now. This is election year. So we see Minister after Minister, the latest being Kapil Sibal, tell us that the price rise and food shortages in India are the “result of global factors.” Nothing to do with us. No less amusing to see the World Bank and the IMF warn of starvation and riots. It’s hard to think of anyone who has contributed more to those phenomena than they have. And now Finance Minister P. Chidambaram calls for an urgent “global consensus on the price spiral.” Without this, social unrest would conflagrate into a “global contagion.”

To be fair to the Union Agriculture Minister, he alone has not laid the blame at the door of faceless global forces. Sharad Pawar locates the problem closer home. In his view, south Indians are eating too many chapathis, leading to shortages of wheat. (DNA page 1, April 2, 2008). An entertaining view but there’s a problem with it. Even while dietary changes do affect consumption patterns, these occur over decades. There is little evidence of an outburst of wheat-centric gluttony in the southern states these past six months. (Unless, of course, with great cunning, the southies are hoarding it up for future chapathi orgies.)

Someone is hoarding it up, though, and it is not the general public, south or north. The presence of very large traders including MNCs buying directly from farmers has been on awhile. A process aided by our strangling of the old Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees’ Act. We’ve set the soil for contract farming and corporate agriculture. Meanwhile, the lip service paid to higher Minimum Support Prices (MSP) has proved worse than a sham. In practice, producers are being pushed towards private trade. Fewer procurement centres, delays in purchasing and, still worse, delays in payments are the norm. Then, when procurement is poor, we announce that the farmers are doing so well in the market, they don’t want to sell to the state.

The present mess was arrived at with much celebration of the farmer’s right to sell as and when he liked, to whom he wished. In effect, millions of farmers, deep in trouble, have been selling their produce at distress rates for several seasons now. The bargaining power of individual farmers on their own is zilch.

Total procurement has been down. When market prices for the farmers’ produce have been higher than the MSP, this might be expected. But it has happened even when the MSP has been raised. There have also been cases of traders picking up produce from indebted farmers and then claiming the higher MSP on it themselves. On the whole, though, smaller traders are in trouble. The big boys are here. And so even with enough grain within the country just now, the less well-off cannot access it at affordable rates.

The Centre’s pressing the States to act against hoarding is itself an admission of the problem. But there is yet to be a single instance of action against really big hoarders and speculators. These include giant companies operating through a variety of pointmen. The raids now focussed on small traders will yield little.

Meanwhile, the entry and growing entrenchment of giants in retail ensures things will get worse. (Remember this was supposed to provide us with cheap prices? Then look at the gap between wholesale and retail prices.) We have also nurtured the commodities futures market despite its clear links to speculation and price rise. It’s odd how every other small trader will brief you at length on this – but you won’t see much of that story in the media. In fact, with markets tanking around the world, more speculators have seized on foodgrain as a good bet. Which it is.

Through the reforms period, we have pushed millions of small farmers to shift from foodcrop to cash crops. The acreage under foodcrop has reduced across these years. And we also exported millions of tonnes of grain – as in 2002 and 2003. What’s more, we exported at prices cheaper than those we charged poor people in this country for the same grain. The idea was that we had a “huge surplus” of grain and could well afford to export. The truth was that the massive pileup of unsold stock arose from a surplus of hunger rather than of grain. The purchasing power of the poor had collapsed. But the fake “surplus” story came in handy. It allowed the export of grain – heavily subsidised by us – to be consumed by European cattle.

The present mess is no surprise. For years, economists such as Utsa Patnaik have warned strongly that we would arrive at where we are now. As she repeatedly pointed out, the effects of all our actions could be seen in the plummeting net per capita availability of foodgrain. From 510 grams per Indian in 1991 to 422 grams by 2005. With the top fifth of Indians doing better than ever before, this meant that those below were eating far less than they did just a few years ago.

The plunging food intake of the poorer sections has come along with the steady scrapping of the public distribution system. On the one hand, the PDS has been sharply whittled down. On the other, millions who need BPL cards are denied them. In Mumbai, just 0.28 per cent of ration cardholders have BPL cards. Now, even those who do have cards find no supplies to buy. And of course, we’ve spared no efforts to link our agriculture to the volatility of global prices in a world where a handful of corporations control those prices. Their clout within India has grown rapidly. Their control extends further each day from the field and farm gate to the price and sale of the final product.

Meanwhile, each budget takes further the process of “growth” driven by the consumption of the rich. Tax breaks at the top, cuts in state spending, all these too have a major role in making life unbearable below. Yet, even as the edifice crumbles, a few true believers hold out for the Second Coming. “Price rise reflects scarcity,” says one editorial, “and at no time is free trade more effective as a welfare enhancer than when it combats scarcity by quickly getting supplies where the demand is.” But governments are “denying free trade this role.” Well, get set for the global contagion.

P Sainath
19 Apr 2008

P. Sainath is the 2007 winner of the Ramon Magsaysay award for Journalism, Literature, and Creative Communication Arts. He is one of the two recipients of the A.H. Boerma Award, 2001, granted for his contributions in changing the nature of the development debate on food, hunger and rural development in the Indian media.

Fritjof Capra : a leading light in creating in alternate world

Fritjof Capra is one of my favourite authors and thinkers. This physicist has been a leading light bringing sanity into the dialogue between Science and Spirituality.

Here’s an interview of this living genius, in a section called Third Eye in The Indian Express:


fritjof_capra.jpgFritjof Capra, physicist and philosopher is also the author of several international bestsellers, especially The Tao of Physics which makes an assertion that physics and metaphysics (spirituality) are both inexorably leading to the same knowledge.

What does spirituality mean to you?

It is a very intense feeling of being alive — being so alive in mind and body that the separation between the two is transcended; and in some extreme moments the separation between myself and the environment is transcended as well. Those are what Abraham Maslow calls peak experiences. But spirituality is more than that. It fundamentally is a way of life. Those experiences help develop a certain attitude towards nature or human existence, they teach me things that I can then integrate into my life, that inform and shape it.

For instance, when I was last in India twenty-five years ago, I also spent some time in Sri Lanka, which was my first experience of a Buddhist country. There, I had quite a few discussions with leading Buddhist scholars and realized how limited our Buddhist practice was in the West. In Zen especially, we tended to equate Buddhism with meditation whereas the Buddha presented an eight-fold path, eight disciplines starting with right seeing, right speaking and so on — the last one only being about right contemplation i.e. meditation. So being spiritual transcends all aspects of one’s life. And one should behave in an ethical way not because there is a God set to punish me on the Last Judgment day, but because it would reflect significantly and negatively on my mind and spirit.

Do you believe you are guided and protected by a superior force?

When you talk of a protective force, or karma, or prayer, or any concept connected to religion, it generally is a shortcut to describe something much more complex. The notion of God itself is not one I am comfortable with. I grew up as a Catholic in Austria, which actually comes with a lot of baggage —moral and beyond— so I’d rather stay away from the notion of God. Of course it is possible to understand it in a very sophisticated way. I wrote for instance a book called Belonging to the Universe with David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk. For him, the religious experience is essentially one of belonging to a larger whole and God is the ultimate reference-point of belonging. I can go along with it but it is pretty intellectual.

I’d rather focus instead on the mindfulness of body and mind, or what Jung called synchronicity. So many times for instance I had experiences of meeting people or coming across information exactly at the moment I needed it.

Carlos Castaneda used to say that every now and then, a cubic centimetre of chance pops up. The man of knowledge picks it up while the others do not see it. So it has a lot to do with awareness.

Sports are a good illustration of that. I am a dedicated tennis player and a huge tennis fan, and I often hear players say “when I am in the zone, everything works, everything flows, nothing can then go wrong”. Tennis is not about muscles only, it is a very mental game, and so much in it is about that awareness. Players would often say “I saw the ball very well today”, as if the ball was larger and time was slowing down. They are totally into it. So rather than guidance, I would talk of mindfulness and awareness in order to be in that flow.

Do you believe you have a special mission or purpose in this life?

I would not talk of a calling, which would have religious undertones, but I would definitely say I am on a mission. As an environmental activist and educator, I have been for decades on a mission to solve the world’s problems and make it a better place for our children and the next generations. Also, through my writings, research and lectures, I have been trying to present a unified scientific view of life, integrating life’s biological, social and cognitive dimensions. At the beginning of my career, when I came across the parallels between physics and Eastern mysticism, I felt I was at the right place and the right time, and I had to write about it, as if I owed it to myself. It was a pretty strong feeling because it meant in the end a lot of sacrifice. I dropped out of full-time physics research and embarked on an uncertain financial path. But I really believed in it.

Also, even though having a calling would not be the right word, I have to say I am an extremely focused and centred person. When growing up in a small flat in Innsbruck [Austria] after the War, I would hear my mother wake up very early in the morning to write her poetry. The noise of her typewriter punctuated my childhood and somehow I inherited from her the talent for writing, as well as the discipline. I like long projects developing over several years and there generally is a gap of six to ten years between my books. I am long term minded when I write and I love to incessantly refine ideas.

What is spirituality for you in your day to day life?

It is a way of life flowing from the spiritual experience. But there also needs to be practice and discipline. It manifests for instance in my daily Tai Ji practice or in ecological ways — recycling, walking or cycling instead of driving whenever possible, not wasting plastic bags and so on. It also is about eating as less meat as possible. Or little things like following Castaneda’s advice of never carrying something in one’s hands when walking. So I have had three generations of shoulder bags over 35 years. It also is about being as aware as possible of opportunities when they arise. And of course it is about human relationships as well. On the overall, one should not forget that the original meaning of “spirit” is breath, so it is about feeling the breath of life.

What is the role of spirituality in your work?

My professional life has several sides: I work as a scientist doing research, as a science writer and as an educator.

As a science writer from the late 60’s on, spirituality was the focus with the Tao of Physics. The Turning Point also had an eastern framework. I consulted the I Ching in finding its title which actually came from it. In my most recent books I have moved on a bit to other things. But spirituality is always there as a background and I feel both obliged and curious when writing a new book, to check whether the spiritual dimension is still there, and what I would have to say about spirituality from this new viewpoint.

My whole involvement with ecology is also steeped into spirituality. Indeed, I see ecology as a form of spirituality, especially the school known as deep ecology which sees humans as intimately connected with the patterns and processes of the world. The sense of belonging, the aliveness that transcends boundaries, all these characteristics of the spiritual experience are part of it.

Some of its manifestations are usually not known and yet so exciting when you think about it. For instance, the fact that we share the same cell structure, the same molecules, the same enzymes, the same lipids of the cell membrane with all living systems whether plants, micro-organisms or animals. And not only do we share the same structures, but also the same processes — what biologists call metabolic pathways.

When you study the chemistry of the cell, you find that the food, the energy that come inside, move in extremely complex pathways, which have evolved in such a way that the cell is very stable and resilient.

These metabolic pathways are not very well known because they are highly non-linear and until very recently we did not have the language or the mathematics to model those highly non-linear phenomena. So it is still quite a mystery. But it is clear that the metabolic path or our cells is very similar if not identical to the one of other living organisms.

When life evolved, it did so in molecular networks then in cellular networks and in organism networks, by modifying patterns, merging structures, borrowing from a structure to change another, modifying structures through mutations.

All this requires a cognitive process, a progressive integration of the new with what was already there. Evolution does not create anything ex-nihilo, it always is a variation on existing patterns.

And if I was to summarize how evolution takes place, I would mention three pathways. The first one is mutation. It is not very meaningful for larger organisms as an animal will spend a year before reproducing (and humans more) and the mutated gene may, or may not be useful to the offspring. But bacteria reproduce themselves millions of times in a single day. So for them, mutation is a very effective mode. Bacteria also exchange genes on a regular basis: about 10% of their genetic material is exchanged on a daily basis. They simply expel and swallow genes. The third pathway is symbio-genesis, the creation of new species by symbiosis. More than two organisms merging and forming a third one, it is about a large organism absorbing bacteria and using its genome.

The three pathways of evolution are very connected. The bacteria are basically at the creative forefront as they multiply so quickly. If it does not work they just die out and try again. Large organisms cannot afford to do so as they reproduce comparatively so slowly, but they can absorb bacteria and use them. It is the case for instance for the chloroplasts. Originally independent organisms which invented photosynthesis, they were then absorbed by plants, and are now performing the photosynthesis inside the leaves’ cells.

Basically, bacteria invented most significant life processes like rapid motion, fermentation, oxygen breathing which were absorbed and used by higher life forms through this acquisition of genome.

Understanding those processes, seeing and connecting the new paradigms emerging in biology, as well as in medicine or physics or psychology are at the core of my work and are connected to spirituality as well. Indeed, I believe life is a unified whole. We do not have a separate biological life, social life, psychological life or spiritual life. It is all part of the whole process of life which has evolved in the last 3.5 billion years.

Can you tell us about a unique experience that changed or shaped your spiritual beliefs?

I have been through many such experiences, but one I would mention was my meeting with Krishnamurti, early on in my career.

I had read him extensively, and he was both very convincing and fascinating to me. As I was moving to California after two years of post-doctoral work, I was facing a real problem: how could I embark on a career as a physicist and pursue science, which is about seeking knowledge, while abiding by Krishnamurti’s injunction to free oneself from the known, to go beyond rational teaching?

He happened then to come to the University of Santa-Cruz where I was teaching. He was not keen on meeting people beyond his lecture, but as luck would have it, his assistant turned out to be French. I was married to a French woman at the time who befriended him and sure enough, we had an audience with the Master. I told him about my dilemma and without even blinking an eye he said “you are first a human being, only then a scientist”. As a human being, we have to go beyond the known in order to deal with our existential problems. Then of course, as a scientist I could pursue knowledge in a more restricted environment.

From then on the problem was gone, he had solved my dilemma.

I have had that experience several times — being ready to hear something and someone with a lot of personality and charisma shows up carrying that message, saying the right thing, at the right time.

What have been your main spiritual inspirations?

I have had so many spiritual experiences and encounters. Artists for instance would be one source of such inspiration. I will never forget the performance by guru Kelucharan Muhabarta I attended when coming to India in the early eighties. He was already old by then, but once he came on stage and performed the ritual offerings, he was not walking or dancing, he was floating in the air across the stage. These are very deep spiritual experiences.

In general, people may think I have been blessed with so many encounters with remarkable men and women, from Werner Heisenberg to Ronnie Laing, from Krishnamurti to Stanislav Grof, from Geoffrey Chew to Gregory Bateson and so many others. But I have also worked hard for it. I looked for such people and nurtured those relationships. I developed over time the skills to engage them in dialogue, to draw them out and give them a sense that I understand what they are saying beyond the technical language, that I could grasp the essence of their discourse.

And this search came with sacrifices as well. In 1970 I dropped out of full-time physics research in order to write the Tao of Physics. It was the last time I received a regular pay check for my research. After publishing the book, I did not want to go back full time to research. I still wanted to experience things in my writing. But science institutions are not equipped to fund part-time researchers — you are either part of the gang fully or not at all.

So I spent twenty years doing research, writing a number of papers, travelling to attend seminars, contributing to the development of the theory — all that on my own financial resources. And you can imagine it was not always easy. My financial situation has been permanently fluctuating. I am a self-employed writer and lecturer. I can turn down lectures but I cannot solicit them. So in the seventies and early eighties my income often fluctuated around zero. I would go into debt then manage somehow. When I wrote the Turning Point the level became higher. But this constant fluctuation and irregularity couldn’t ever be a pleasant and easy feeling.

If you were to be reincarnated, what would you like to be reincarnated as?

I am so fascinated by Leonardo da Vinci that I would choose to be part of his entourage, for instance the King of France who held long conversations with him towards the end of his life, or Francesco Melzi who accompanied him for many years.

If there was one question you could ask God, what would it be?

We are today in a huge global crisis, we are destroying our livelihood and ecosystems, we are decimating species, we are poisoning the atmosphere, we are living in a non sustainable way globally with huge population and economic growth, with over-consumption of things we do not need. Some of us know how to do things differently, not only theoretically but also in very concrete ways. There is no technological or financial problem, only a political one. If you were to transfer all the money invested in Iraq to alternative energies for instance, there would not have been a war in the first place. If all the money flowing into hospitals because of pollution related diseases was invested into electric cars’ infrastructure it would work as well. So I would ask God what I can do to really make people understand what is happening and jump into another reality, to make them “see the light”.

What is your idea of happiness?

I would say I know of three kinds of happiness. First, short but extremely intense moments of happiness — it could be a spiritual episode, listening to music, a sexual experience, or some extreme skiing adventure for instance. Then longer periods, maybe a week or a month, usually connected to human relations, like falling in love, but not only. When I spend time with my brother for instance, to whom I am very close, I have that kind of feeling. The long term is the most difficult part. But I could rephrase your question and say that basically, I am a happy person. As I am getting older, I have to take care of my body with much more care, I go to the gym, I do Tai Ji daily, I watch my diet, and I am in a very good shape, much younger biologically than my actual age. So I have this feeling of being at home in my body. I also have a constantly active mind, I never get bored, I always have research projects, and interesting people to talk to. It does not mean I never get unhappy, for instance when I watch the state of the world, or when things do not work out, like human relationships. But those are transitory crisis or difficulties everyone has. In the long term, I think I am basically happy because I feel truly alive. And it comes back to my answer to what spirituality means to me — being alive. That feeling of aliveness holds for the three kinds of happiness, it can manifest in short and intense moments or in a less vivid but long term subtle feeling. And it is interesting to notice that spirituality and happiness come down to the same answer, to the same place.

A word about human creativity

Talking about happiness, here is one question I have not found an answer to: I noticed that many artists thrive on stress, rather than on happiness. They are most productive at times of utter strain and do not seem to focus on finding balance in their lives.

When they come to describing their most creative moments though, they would often use the language of the miraculous, as if it was a supernatural experience, as if they were a conduit for something beyond them. And this is something I can actually explain. To me, the dynamics of creativity are basically highly non linear situations when the mind is considering all sorts of information, issues etc. It may lead to a crisis when it gives up altogether and once that happens, there is a sudden flash of insight and there comes the creative manifestation. The artist cannot explain it because it is not a linear phenomenon. He cannot describe doing something, then another one, that would ultimately lead to a certain result. So he will depict it as a miracle, coming from somewhere else.

I once read an interview of a jazz drummer who was asked about collective improvisation. How could all the musicians be so perfectly synchronized and then stop on the exact same note? To which he musingly answered: “if you feel it is a miracle, then that is what it is”. He had no other way of explaining it.

CEOs’ salaries, PM’s speech, Bihar’s backwardness and a lot of farmer suicides

This article, originally written several months back for I am reproducing the same here.

Prime Minister Singh’s message

“In a modern, democratic society, business must realize its wider social responsibility. The time has come for the better off sections of our society – not just in organized industry but in all walks of life – to understand the need to make our growth process more inclusive; to eschew conspicuous consumption; to save more and waste less; to care for those who are less privileged and less well off; to be role models of probity, moderation and charity”, said Dr. Manmohan Singh during the recent speech at CII.

The popular media and corporate leaders’ reaction

The more popular newspapers, such as the ToI, which to my mind are mostly about “Page 3 journalism”, expectedly expressed the opposing point of view, and highlighted Sunil Mittal saying “the kind of salaries the PM was referring to was far from being the norm of the industry and just a handful among the total workforce got it…The PM’s message has to be taken in right spirit. His concern was in view of the wealth inequality in the country…It’s the in-your-face expenditure that hurts the have-nots. He meant ostentatious display of wealth which should be avoided”. Thank God for papers like the Indian Express, whose editor offered a fresh view on Singh’s speech, pointing out that “one thing which you can never fault Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is on facts…So on the fact of trinity of sins the Prime Minister is spot on. Greed, ostentation and cartelisation…do not merely exist, they have been growing…”, and then deservedly bashes the government on not delivering to the rest of India – the Bharat – while blaming the corporates alone, in a review titled “Economic Deforms: Blame the Bentley, don’t fix the road, school or hospital”.

The statement by Sunil Mittal is misinterpretation, if not intentional convolution of Singh’s speech. For instance, the PM mentioned “…to eschew conspicuous consumption; to save more and waste less; to care for those who are less privileged and less well off; to be role models of probity, moderation and charity”.

What could define “conspicuous consumption”? Apart from the marriage madness (spending millions on marriages) that has gripped the minds of the upper-middle class and rich Indian, there is more to consuming conspicuously. The extravagance in our dressing (or under-dressing), in our cars, in our night life, in the restaurants we eat in, the night clubs we dance and drink in, the way our young make their hair, is all a ‘display of our money’ and ‘sense of power’. True enjoyment or happiness in not to be found in these things, as most spiritual leaders would advise, but that is best argued in a separate story.

Why Blame the Corporates? The Government is to Blame for not distributing the benefits

Ofcourse, the government is responsible for the state of the nation. Yet, what is also responsible is the money that drives these governments. Corporates drive policy all over the world. It is business and oil consumption that drove USA to war with Iraq, it is this same profiteering which is leading to GM seeds in India, leading to thousands farmer suicides. Even what the farmer grows in his farm is driven by government schemes and policy, which are further driven by the industry.

Don’t believe me?

Read P.Sainath’s “Everybody loves a good drought“. In a recent speech at a CII meet, Mani Shankar Aiyar, a part of the current UPA government, argued that policy is hijacked by a small elite ( That the cabinet he belongs to is quite comfortable with this hijacking. That India’s system of governance is such that Rs 650 crore for village development is considered wasteful but Rs 7,000 crore for the Commonwealth Games is considered vital. The classes rule all the time, Aiyar says, the masses get a look-in every five years”.

So when Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in ToI, argues that the problems of Bihar or UP don’t stem from some CEO drawing a huge salary in Mumbai, I would say he is right, about the problems not stemming from CEOs’ salary. Though if the CEOs’ salary are part of a larger consumption and profiteering environment, completely based on non-sharing, then it certainly becomes ‘part’ of the problem.

So should we live like paupers, people might ask me? Do we not deserve a better lifestyle, because we have earned this all ourselves?

I’ll answer the second question first, which will be best described in context of Singh’s speech. He made a very important point – “The Social Charter I have spoken of is your responsibility to society at large. We in the government have our obligation to you as well.We have worked hard to create a business friendly environment, an environment which is conducive to rapid growth…the results are there for all to see. It is not by accident that the average rate of economic growth has been 9% in the last three years. It is not by chance that the savings rate of the country is 32% of GDP and the rate of investment has touched an all-time peak of 35% of our GDP. It is not by luck that the manufacturing sector is booming. It is not by good fortune that inward FDI is close to twenty billion dollars now. It is not by a miracle that we are today a trillion dollar economy. These are the results of balanced, prudent economic policies; policies which have focused on strengthening every aspect of infrastructure including airports, roads, railways and ports; policies which have reduced our revenue and fiscal deficits; policies which have promoted greater investment, both domestic and foreign; policies which have given a boost to manufacturing and services; policies which are designed to harvest the demographic dividend we are beginning to get from a youthful workforce; policies which have pushed development into our rural and backward areas; policies which have made India a great place to do business. “.

I’m afraid not much has been said on this statement. I believe Singh meant, that for the corporate leaders to believe that they have been able to create all this wealth by their own intelligence and hard work, is a half-truth. The circumstances and environment in which they can grow has been created by the government, and thus they owe the money they have earned to society to be fed back to it. I believe this is what our PM was telling the “elite” gathering.

“What comes from the people must go back to the people many-many times over” – this was the famous statement by JRD Tata, which has been the essence of his work philosophy and driving force, carried forward with care by Ratan Tata – although I have a sense that this is beginning to lose ground. No enterprise will be on solid ground, by going against the interests of the people, on whose land it is looking to build industries and in some sense, these “temples of modern India”, to pick a cue from Nehru. No true temple worth its mettle can exist without the blessings of the common people, let alone by getting their wrath and anger, expressed through rallies, and yesterday – a suicide.

Singh’s statement holds extremely true when we look deep enough, and see that the power that is being consumed by the corporations, is reaching them by dispersing and destroying the land of millions of people. The power and water reserves, ostensibly created for bringing prosperity to millions of farmers, is mostly diverted to cities to feed the deep stomachs of the middle class and rich classes, the latter among which are the most waste-oriented.

A look into the day-to-day wastage of water and electricity in our homes is an example of this. Mr. Sunil Mittal may not agree, but consider the fact in most Indian corporates’ offices plastic throw away cups for drinking water is the norm, and this – after all big talk of of CSR. Is it too difficult or expensive for these corporates to use paper-based cups, or even better provide washable water glasses, like Nirula’s does across all their restaurants? This is an issue of leadership which is conscious of the environment and people, it has earned all their billions from.

Frugality is Indian tradition; modernity sees frugality as poverty

Every now and then I come across essays from corporate leaders in the industry, specifically from the software industry, shredding the myth about Indians being fatalistic and not driving forward for a better life. Shedding off the the fatalistic attitudes that has penetrated deep in our psyche is a good thing. What is however not so good, is propagating living ‘rich lifestyles’, when millions of ‘us’ are living in abject poverty with no ‘equalness’ in opportunity to get out of that.

Infact, it is often in the interests of the ‘haves’ to leave the current ‘have-nots’ where they are, or at best make them grow, but at their own distinction, or the ‘market forces’ applying to them. To state from a day-to-day example…when it comes to negotiating the salary of an ‘Aayah’ at home, the salary bracket changes each year by some Rs. 100. Last year “the rate” for a house-cleaning-maid in the posh Vasant Kunj area in New Delhi that I live in was Rs.500. It is this year, Rs.600 for 1 hour of cleaning each of the 7 days a week. The state of the car cleaner, the chowkidar, the maali, the car driver, the permanent domestic help (‘servant’ or ‘maid-servant’, as they are commonly referred to as) is the same, all over. The same spills over to the lower-rung office staff, while the same corporates fall over each other in making the environments of the ‘haves ‘ as comfortable as possible, with progressive practices as helping them adopt a ‘work-life balance’.

The ‘genuine love’ with which some of the ‘servants’ bring up our children is not payable by any form of money. The least we can do is compensate them adequately so that they can live better lives; and to take this a step further, maybe even push the slightly entrepreneurial ones in becoming self-employed.

So how should the wealthy live?

On the other side of the spectrum have been wealthy people who have led simple lives. Among the earlier industrialists of India, in my memory, JRD Tata, and lately, Narayan Murthy, are the ones who have expressed and lived high ideals of ‘living simply’ and ‘sharing wealth’.

It would be a good idea to quote the Mahatma in this context. “…But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service…It is true that generally the rich spend more on themselves than they need. But this can be avoided. Jamnalalji spent far less on himself than men of his own economic status and even than many middle-class men. I have come across innumerable rich persons who are stingy on themselves. For some it is a part of their nature to spend next to nothing on themselves, and they do not think that they acquire merit in so doing.”

To not shake you off too much by the high ideals of Gandhi, here is a practical point that Singh made while quoting Keynes, “…European Society was so framed as to throw a great part of the increased income into the control of the class least likely to consume it. The new rich of the 19th century were not brought up to large expenditures, and preferred the power which investment gave them to the pleasures of immediate consumption…If the rich had spent their new wealth on their own enjoyments, the world would long ago have found such a regime intolerable…The duty of “saving” became nine-tenths of virtue and the growth of the cake the object of true religion.”

In simpler words, the point that Singh is making is, that while extravagant spending on oneself is a bad idea, and ‘saving for the future is healthy’, its even healthier to invest in making the cake larger, from which others can share.

One could argue on what is extravagance. I would recommend switch the thought process from ‘what is extravagant living’ to ‘what is simple living’. That may provide some insights.

Some facts for you to ponder over

I do not have all facts about India at hand while I write this article. Yet, here are some points which you may like to read.

  1. India ranks eighth in the world in the number of our millionaires. We stand 126th on the Human Development Index. Last year we were 127th [2]
  2. The number of farmer suicides in India since 2000 has been over 100,000
  3. The United Nations has purportedly reported that the world’s resources are not enough for India and China’s populations to live the lifestyle of Europeans, Americans and the Japanese.

I hope to expand this list of rather depressing ‘did-you-knows’ with time.

PM Singh’s 10 point charter

“You have all been the beneficiaries of our improved growth performance. When I read about the growing number of Indian millionaires and billionaires, about Indian companies buying up multinationals abroad, about our clogged airports, about the real estate boom, about new holiday destinations, about soaring CEO compensations, I know that you have benefited from the growth process….I invite corporate India to be a partner in making ours a more humane and just society. We need a new Partnership for Inclusive Growth based on, as what I would describe as, a Ten-Point Social Charter.

  1. Have a healthy respect for your workers and invest in their welfare.
  2. Corporate social responsibility must not be defined by tax planning strategies alone. Rather, it should be defined within the framework of a corporate philosophy which factors the needs of the community and the regions in which a corporate entity functions
  3. Industry must be pro-active in offering employment to the less privileged, at all levels of the job ladder
  4. Resist excessive remuneration to promoters and senior executives and discourage conspicuous consumption. In a country with extreme poverty, industry needs to be moderate in the emoluments levels it adopts. Rising income and wealth inequalities, if not matched by a corresponding rise of incomes across the nation, can lead to social unrest
  5. Invest in people and in their skills
  6. Desist from non-competitive behaviour. The operation of cartels by groups of companies to keep prices high must end
  7. Invest in environment-friendly technologies
  8. Promote enterprise and innovation, within your firms and outside
  9. Fight corruption at all levels
  10. Promote socially responsible media and finance socially responsible advertising

India has made us. We must make Bharat.”

For more details on each point visit to see the complete speech.


Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of Trusteeship is as follows, “…We invite the capitalist to regard himself as a trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is din a position to become a co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave.”[1]

Do I practice what I am preaching here? How can the readers of this article take back something to implement in their lives

Some people who know me, my family and friends, see me practicing portions of these truths, but of course there are glaring gaps between what I I’m saying here and what I practice. Yet, I must say that continually, I am challenging my own thinking, most often through the help and guidance of my mentors and coach, and growing slowly beyond the ideas of ‘ownership’ to one that of ‘trusteeship’. Also, more than me, I think Srijan practices and has better CSR practices, inspite of its minuscule size that some large corporations. This is not about boasting, but simply about stating our commitment to Life – people, environment – India included. Please visit:

To quote Mahatma Gandhi once again, not as a means to defend my slow evolution of thought and action, but simply to make the point that I am striving to live up to these ideals – “The question how many can we be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction. If you accept the principle of ahimsa, you have to strive to live up to it, no matter whether you succeed or fail. There is nothing in this theory which can be said to be beyond the grasp of intellect, though you may say it is difficult to practice…I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship in spite of the ridicule that has been poured upon it. It is true that it is difficult to reach. So is non-violence. But we made up our minds in 1920 to negotiate that steep ascent. We have found it worth the effort.”

To quote him further, “Those who own money now, are asked to behave like trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor. You may say that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly and try to act up to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing state of equality on earth than by any other method….But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service…”

[2] Article by Mani Shankar Aiyer in Indian Express

Some good reads: