Your Smile means I am fine...

Similar to the incident where I met the 100-year old man, I happened to meet another elderly person. I was in the hospital to meet a friend and someone mentioned about this person and said he was also admitted in the same hospital for some ailment. I never knew him, I hadn't talked to him anytime before, but I knew he was a resident of the community. A couple of other friends also thought let's go and visit him although none of us knew him well. So we went to his ward. He knew only one among our group but he understood we are a gang. He must have been in his late eighties (or may be in early nineties). As we could see, his ailment had taken a heavy toll. The first thing that happens, I think, to some people who are otherwise healthy, well-built for a long time and suddenly fall sick in their old age is that, they lose their cheeky build and drastically reduce to a thin frame. He had great difficulty having food on his own and his wife was feeding him a semi-liquid from a cup. We thought it wouldn't be good manners to step in but they said its okay and moreover, it was already getting dark and we thought he might wish to take rest later. His wife was also in her eighties and still does voluntary work.

I felt that though his frame had reduced, the shine in his eyes had not. He mentioned about my friend's father and recollected how they went back a long time, though they had branched out into different workplaces. He was happy that we were visiting him although he actually knew only one of us. He said: I am not so sure about the ailment and the pain that has inflicted me, but when I see the (well-wishing) smile on your faces, then I know I am getting well. Your smile is a sign of my wellbeing. I had mentioned in an earlier post, that elderly couples, after a threshold age, go on to become good old buddies, with the bonding turning almost as a spiritual friendship. I felt the same way when I saw the old lady feeding her husband. Seldom do young couples pause to think that the test of true bonding lies far ahead later in life, that the best of fun times are only the beginning part of the wedding promises and keeping them up till the end is the proof of the pudding.

They both probably had come to the plain realisation that the ailment may be terminal. She mentioned, that the God they believed in, whatever He did would be good to them. Wow, I thought. It's easy to debunk or theorise about a belief in God, but it's tough to turn that faith, whatever God you may have, into a positive strength when it matters the most and when all our devices are shutting out in non-co-operation. You know that your most possessive possession so far, your own body, is giving way and you have to use the strength of something that is not made of body stuff. You don't even want to think of trying that, and even tougher to try it at 80+.

His strength was even better. Similar to the earlier incident, his mental strength was amazing. His voice was blurred so I couldn't get it verbatim, words came with breaks, but let me capture the main idea. He said : Suffering is a great test of your spirituality. For a long time, we have been 'knowing' the whats and hows of being spiritual, but in such a situation, it is a test to have the faith that My God is always with me. And I firmly believe He is with me. That the condition of the body is this or that doesn't matter, but in my mind I know, whatever happens we have His Blessings. This is the time to remember, and actually practise what we have always known all these years.

It set me thinking on suffering. Suffering, I agree with him, is really a great test of spirituality. Other times, you probably "apply" your spirituality "on others", to third party situations, but the acid test of your spirituality is when a real suffering touches you directly. Dhoodh kaa dhoodh, Paani kaa paani Ho Jayega. Buddha devoted his entire life in finding the answer for this one question. We live off our lives not bothering about it, as if it were out of syllabus, but dude, thats one sure question thats going to be on exam paper. For, old age and its accompaniments are a certainty and more often, such a certainty that we will most likely be all alone to handle the actual stuff. If at all you want to have an Either-Or choice, now is the time make that choice between becoming a Budda or a Buddha. The others can rally around you in support, speak nice words and may be even help you out, but there is no proxy for living out your pain. You have to do it, yeah scary it is, all by yourself, bit by bit. This requires a lifetime's preparation of your mind, brick by brick, to keep it strong in old age. When the body is strong, the mind may fritter away, but if such a frittering can be streamlined and built to be strong, then such a strength would come in handy when the body is on its withering way.

I and one of my friends are opposites in our lifestyles. There are many unhealthy elements in my lifestyle, I blog after midnight and I sleep late, I have a lot of junk food and less of healthy food, I live like a sin(e) curve, don't keep a standard schedule etc. Whereas he lives his life as if a clock decided to become a human being and bless the earth, and lives in a very simple straight line, while a few others run around in circles. :) . I often joke that he is like The Wall, stay and play, ball by ball and hit a slow century. Another friend of mine jokes that he spends the first 60 years in disciplined suffering so that he may live the next 20 happily, whereas others spend first 60 merrily and suffer the last 20. While I often quip away the flexi lifestyle to be the ultimate exercise of Brahamachari independence, I have to sheepishly agree when well-meaning friends often insist, will rolling eyes, that body will soon show its signs. Come to think of it, the jokes apart, my friend does have a healthier lifestyle than mine, and the compliment is not only about the body. The health of the mind that you acquire across years is going to be a major support when you have crossed most of your years. This recent quote about paradoxes on Prasanna's blog puts it well.

When we moved away from that hospital bed that night, after holding his hand reassuringly for a moment, wishing him the best and praying for his good health, we didn't know he would be no more within two weeks. But those two minutes of interaction with him had set us all thinking on why it is important to live a life in a particular way and not just in any way, anyway.

Being a part of a rising Nation

Continuing my earlier post on Gandhi, here is more discussion on the same thread : discussing whether Bhagat Singh and Nathuram were the same, and whether Nathuram didn't have any choice, and reply to some feedback on my response:

Bhagat Singh .vs. Nathuram
I think I have already mentioned what I think is the difference and I can't think of anything more to add. As to your saying, that the actions are the same, only the words are different, I would say: Which is why there are different words to refer to different kinds of actions, and the meanings often include the context, motive and the implication it would have on the listener. There are different words to refer to the actions of cutting paper, cutting trees, cutting carrots, cutting goats and cutting necks.

The inappropriateness of comparing murder and martyrdom can be seen, if you try to extend the example under comparison. What if someone had a problem with Nathruam for killing Gandhi and he wanted to finish off Nathuram's family or friends ? Does it appear ridiculous ? One might ask: why bring in family and friends here? I would say it's a valid question. A person arguing from the killer's side would say, from my viewpoint it's a passion for me, i am ready to surrender and how else will I handle the fanaticism of people like Nathuram ? Extend this kind of responses from either side and what we have would be a series of violent retaliations and there wouldn't be discussing any more, there would just be dying.

Nation building was still left...
Moreover, Bhagat Singh and Nathuram didn't operate on same terrains. I'll also use this to answer Surya's question: What alternatives did Nathuram have ? India had its teething problems but it was a free nation. It had plenty of nation-building work to do. Nathuram was just 40 when he killed Gandhi. He had a lot of years left in his life. He could have joined the national mainstream, either in politics or in whichever field of work he thought would contribute to nation-building, even the Hindutva school which he subscribed to. He did have a great passion for his country and age in his favour, he could have used it to,let's say, start his movement, even explicitly against Gandhi and take him headon at his game. Sure, it would have taken a very long time to achieve what he dreamt of as a good nation, but Gandhi himself took plenty of time to build a stature and gather momentum for his movement. Every leader, unless gifted with the hereditary couch, has to build his fort by taking his movement to the people.

Did the trees help those who came later...
For all its demerits, India did turn out to be a great democracy in the 50 years that followed. Anything would be debated, one doesn't have to go by a populist school, one indeed can start a new one. Even the populist leaders did have a couple of other senior leaders to contest their supreme hold. Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Rajaji, Patel all of them had serious differences with Nehru or Indira, but they collectively showed what democracy can do. Amartya Sen compliments this Indian spirit to allow diversity in discussions which India very much allowed, atleast relatively better than all of its neighbours. Nathuram could have been a part of all that, a part of India that was rising, instead of the earlier India that was :) fasting unto death. Okay, he killed Gandhi, did he achieve whatever he thought of, as nation-building dreams ? Okay he died before he achieved, did he atleast give a strong fillip to his brethren or followers to take up the daunting task of building the nation ? Whom did the killing benefit in a long-term nation-building way? This is a difference between Bhagat Singh and Nathuram. What Bhagat Singh did, gave a boost to the people who were to follow soon and take the freedom struggle seriously. It did give a jolt to the British, that we got to take Indians a helluva lot seriously, we can't kill them in a closed garden and get away with it. That there is young blood, stuff out there that takes freedom seriously.

@ the view that the rebuttal was out of context :

I did notice the direction or context the discussion was taking and had read the full thread many times over before formulating my response. May be my response didnt cover the other points raised by other members and was primarily directed at a particular post by Surya, which is why it looks like the primary issue hasnt been handled. Moreover, I would like to think that the rebuttal is as much in context or (as much out of) context as the bashing in the first place. Discussions like this do have a tendency to stray off into lanes and bylanes that might have never been thought of !!

I do have my reservations about Gandhi's life and writings, but I found that those that were mentioned here were not the ones. That's another thread, lest this thread goes out of context !

On the other points mentioned :
Agree that we should attempt to take a 360-degree view, though it's quite possible one has formed one's views, after such an attempt.
Agree that there is nothing wrong in analysing Gandhi, he was one man worth analysing over and over.
Also agree that analysis is better than idolization, particularly in the Indian context.

@ the remark by Surya that it's an Emotional Response :

I agree partially on this, though I would have loved to have heard the phrase "there are certain emotional elements in the response", instead of categorising the entire response as emotional. There are, for example, mentions about institutionalising solutions experimented at the individual level and appropriateness of using political tact in democratic choices, which are purely issue discussions.

Also, I would like to think my responses are as emotional (or as intellectual/objective) as the average of the quality of the posts on this thread, including me and everyone for the averages. On the flip side of my approach, is my tendency to write in the "I and You" style, which often gives the impression that I am "pointing out and outpouring", whereas 'You' refers to the World and 'I' refers to any average thinker (both sometimes looping back to me). I try my best to say "One does this, One does that" and so on, but sometimes, it builds up to too many ones :) . I hope to improve on this. Reading too much of Arundhati Roy is injurious to my writing style.

These two links, from Rang De Basanti, might be interesting in the discussion:
Go Ahead and Transform your Country
Violence is not the solution

Why the world doesn't need Gandhi Bashing....

There was some Gandhi-bashing going on in the one of the Orkut Forums, so I thought I will give a rebuttal from the Gandhigramite point of view......

The bash, first :

gandhiji was no secular human being. and nathuram godse was no fanatic. gandhiji was a spent idea and his time for rest had come. because he never wanted to rest peacefully he was laid to rest in peace for ever. had gandhi been alive for another 5 years, india would have travelled 30 years back. he was gainst industrialization and he was killed for he wanted to donate another some lakhs to pakistan. hindu muslim unity was not feasible at that time for the nation was in war over kashmir. you dont run a nation with gita's quotes. gita is for personal growth. gandhi would have done well to read up arthashastra or the bhishma parva of mahabharata to advise nehru. he was a confused human being. agreed that he had contributed immensely to the national struggle but he overdid it. he indeed played politics when he preffered nehru rather than bose to be the president of INC. gandhi wanted only those who believed in his ideology. i will define him as a "non-violent hitler". he did the damage indirectly. he was not a democrat at all!!

My rebuttal :

People often confuse Gandhiji's personal belief in Hinduism with a wrong understanding of the word Secularism. A Hindu, however pious, ritualistic and religious, can still be secular, by allowing other people to have similarly strong beliefs in their respective religions. This is exactly what Gandhiji often sought to explain. He was among the first to use the word Secularism in the Indian context, to say that, while every person is entitled to his personal belief in X or Y religion, the state has no business to align itself to any one particular religion more or less and people should keep their religious belief as a personal pursuit. He admitted his liking for Hinduism and its traditions as openly as he advocated respect for all religions. He even dissuaded the State from spending government funds to renovate the Somnath Temple.

I wanted to handle this one first. I'll come to whether Nathuram was a fanatic or not, but, he was, imho, definitely a murderer. Just in case, people confuse this with the word martyr. I consider Bhagat Singh and others of his calibre as martyrs and Bose and Bal-Pal-Lal to be brave leaders, but I consider Nathuram a weakling. He didn't know how else to fight Gandhi's ideology, he thought let's just remove him from the face of the earth. What did Nathuram do ? He killed someone for differing with him on what's good for the nation. Thats not reason enough to kill someone. If you differ from someone and if you think he is capable of a widespread influence, you should be able to take on his ideology by attempting to start an influential movement yourself, build it brick by brick out of your personal strength and leadership skills and show people what you think is true. Instead of that, you just settle scores with the gun, I wouldn't think that to be a mature mind. I might give him some points for passion, he didn't do it for a selfish reason, he had the courage to surrender, but if the underlying approach is flawed and lacks maturity, all passion and courage turn out to be grayed with tension and rage.

This is what Gandhi himself demonstrated. No one had even thought of a non-violent approach before. When he stepped into the political scene, the previous wave had entirely been about extremism. The idea of non-violence was not his original idea, but he was the one who institutioinalised it as an idea for the Indian freedom struggle. You might differ on whether or nor it was more efficacious, lot of people believe Bose's approach would have been better. But even if someone doubts its efficacy, you have to credit Gandhi for his capacity to institutionalise an entirely new approach to the question and gather millions of countrymen in support. And the response he got from the public was truly sweeping at the time, though there were always some differing groups in pockets. Even if you disagree with Gandhi's insitutionalising skills, look at what Bose did. He too demonstrated how to differ with someone, in a great healthy way. He differed with Gandhi, he set out to start his movement to tell people about what he thought was right and did succeed in gathering a large momentum against the British. That's a great way to differ with someone. The point I am trying to make here is: Nathuram did NONE of this. He was looking at the teleprinter giving out the news about Gandhi's fast unto death, and he was frustrated, all his pent up hatred flowed and he took up the task. He had his own and only point of view on Hinduism and if someone didn't listen to him a few times nicely... booooom.... He was largely influenced by Savarkar's writings alright, but even Bhagat Singh and Bose were influenced by Savarkar's writings, it's not what one reads that matters but having read, how to apply one's mind and what one sets out to do. There is a difference between fighting the British for the freedom of a nation and killing your countryman for a political question of transferring money. If Nathuram had to take on Gandhi at his game, he had to demonstrate an equal amount of personal strength and leadership, which comes by the thinking of a rich mind and long term application of effort. He couldn't do any of this and just went for a short term finish Now you tell me, need I discuss whether he was a fanatic or not ? In my view, there is no difference between this and naxalite violence.

It might be pertinent to cover here the point regarding transfer of money to Pakistan here, since the event is one of the ascribed motives of Nathuram. For the record, the deal was part of the Partition Agreeement. India didn't want to fulfil it because of events that happened after the partition (rebel occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan). So it was purely a political problem between India and Pakistan that, by design, was a complex one to solve and it remains to this day. Gandhiji had his views on the matter and he expressed it and, typical of him, wanted to fast unto death. Medha Patkar goes on a fast unto death and let's say, the government decides to reduce the height of the dam or appoint a panel to study rehabilitation, and one of the construction partners gets irked by the fast-unto-death strategy working in her favour, can he set out to kill someone for that ? I can understand if the procession becomes a law and order situation and the state intervening to handle it by exercising its powers, but can individuals settle violent scores on a issue under debate ?

India would have travelled back ? Gandhi had his views on industrialization and the models village-centric rural development. I would even agree that his was one of the areas where he did not succeed much in getting support or widespread institutional acceptance. But to say that if he had continued to live, India would have gone back is not true. He was not at the helm of affairs of industrialization anyway. Nehru was incharge, it was well-known even at that time that Nehru and Gandhi had differences on a lot of issues and industrialization was one of them. Nehru had plenty of other friends in the science, engineering and policymaking circles and was also influenced by his study of the economies of other countries like Russia and Japan. Nehru had already firmed up his mind on the industrialization route and Gandhi had let him to differ and work in that route. Gandhi, on the other hand, still believed on a village-centric development working inside out, and thought, after freedom, he would "spend his ideas" working on changing the society at the grassroots level and leave the national policy to Nehru. So Gandhi or not, Nehru's industrialization agenda would have anyway prevailed. There are a section of people who now look back and review whether or not Nehru's approach was okay or not okay, but that's stuff enough for another thread. Gandhi, might have, probably gone on a few more fasts-unto-death to reverse any labour-hostile moves or any other moves by Nehru which affected people in a large way, but, in spite of differences, he believed in Nehru and had handed over the macrodirection of the nation-building to Nehru. Gandhi's model of village-centric development inside out still has its relevance in certain areas where it has been tried on a smaller scale, like in The Gandhigram Rural Institute, where I studied.

Confused man ? Every leader who wants to think deeply about the society in which he lives in, will have contrarian schools of thought conflicting in his mind at one point of time or another. Many of the basic problems that afflict society are easy to think about and solve at the individual level but extremely complex when it comes to institutionalising these solutions as a national policy. Gandhi was a well-read man, he wrote on almost every aspect of the individual and the society, he thought deeply and originally on many issues. The areas where he failed to make an impact, in my view, are those where he tried to institutionalise solutions that worked well at the individual level but may not work as a state policy. I can give a coin to the beggar, I might even give food to the same beggar all through the year, but to magnify those noble motives into a national policy on hunger is a different ball game. There were indeed some areas where he succeeded in doing this, (freedom struggle and untouchability) and some where he did not make such a great impact, like the Charkha and Khadi. He probably had a small set of basic beliefs and thought to resolve all the complex issues by deciding based on those beliefs, which he thought as "first principles". ( I might be wrong on this). Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Just because a leader of his stature failed in certain areas, to say that he was a "confused human being" is a sweeping over-generalisation. And the good thing about Gandhi, is he laid down, in writing, for public feedback, his conflicts and his own confusions if any, on issues that impacted the society.

Sidelining Bose : I don't think it's possible to run any political organisation, without sidelining someone or the other by political tact. Often, in politics, you have to choose between two equally vibrant minds. You have to choose one, because, both minds, though vibrant, work in totally different directions. Gandhi had approach A and Bose had approach B. It would have torn the Congress apart to have attempted to run one organisation with almost conflicting ideologies. Nehru, with all his differences, was more aligned to Gandhi. And Gandhi did not shoot Bose, like Nathuram did to Gandhi. He just said, if you want me at the helm, you know where I'll throw my hat. It so happened that at that point of time in history, Gandhi had an extremely strong following and backing in the party and in the country and large, and Bose had to move out. In fact, Bose went on to rise much much more in stature after he parted ways with Gandhi. Had he been stuck, he would have had to moderate all his vibrance in the service of something which he never believed and would have caused more frustration to himself and more trouble to the party. That Gandhi chose Nehru instead of Bose, is entirely within democracratic choice. People choose X against Y and align themselves all the time and quite often even part ways and succeed or fail. It so happened in history, that Gandhi's influence was so widespread and had greater following by numbers than the other schools of thought, so whatever Gandhi said, lot of people came on his side. You can't blame someone for his popularity, It's a numbers and ideology game, pitch your tent and count how many people listen to you, if it's more you win, if it's less try again next time. That's how politics works.

non-violent hitler who damaged indirectly ?: The phrase attributes an explicitly sinister motive to Gandhi's decisions. This is not true. Statements made by many current-day politicians make veiled references to taking things in "their own hands" and indirectly predict that they may have no option if the situation goes out of control etc. Gandhi never did any such thing. He announced his strategies against the British from time to time, all his announcements were clearly of the non-violent nature. In incidents like the Chauri Chaura, or in the case of partition violence, much damage might have been caused by how individuals interpreted and impulsively reacted to his declarations, but there was nothing in what Gandhi said that directly or indirectly hinted violence. Damage might have occurred as a cascading effect of various levels of interpretation by other individuals, but you can't place the responsibility for such acts on what strategy he announced, particularly when he openly exhorted all his followers to be strong but non-violent. Hindu Muslim Unity was not feasible at the time, agreed, so if someone espouses, is he wrong?, just because it wasn't feasible?. Producing environ-friendly cars or renewable energy in a cost-effective way was considered infeasible at one time, does it mean people who tried to explain to us were wrong ? In fact, I would like to think that they were forerunners in raising these to the people and telling them that if they wanted a good life, they have to choose their actions differently.

As to the statement that Gandhiji never wanted to rest, so he was laid to rest, I can appreciate only the pun. Let me take some rest now.

If you have the Will, you can serve the Pill

Last month I was chatting with one of my batchmates, who organises volunteer medical camps every month, in Bangalore. He works for one of the top 10 companies in the world, so I thought his schedule must be quite demanding. I was prodding him about the kind of people who volunteer for these camps. He mentioned about two kinds. The first kind, try and make an occasional appearance from time to time and do their best. What might be the reasons for their not being more regular? They usually say, weekends are the only times we get to spend with families, after our busy office schedules during the week. Though the camps are a noble thing, one also needs to spend time with the family. So they try and make it whenever they can. Also, travelling from one end of the city to another is a nightmare in daylight.

The other kind are a handful who attend every month no matter what. Some doctors, it seems, drop into Bangalore, from Kerala or Mangalore travelling overnight, at their expense, just for the sake of this camp, carrying medicines that can be used at the camp. They reach the camp after freshening up at the bus-stand hotels and grabbing a quick breakfast. They plan out their trips to the medical camp with the same anticipation as if they were planning for a campfire resort. They find it fulfilling to use their skills and services in the noble venture, in addition to the same kind of work they do during the week at their respective hospitals. Come on, everyone doesn't have this luxury, you might say. Luxury? Probably only the bus is luxury category, but the travel wouldn't be. One might think, they are singles or their families aren't demanding etc., but it isn't the case. Lot of people do that for a living. It's quite common to find people who work in one city the whole week, take the weekend bus to go home, spend the weekend and hop back to office on Monday. The weekend crowds on routes like Bangalore-Hyderabad, Chennai-Bangalore, Chennai-Madurai comprise a lot of these people and some of them even hop-stop-jump when the direct buses are full. These doctors might often be one of those non-descript commuters, just that they do it for a different motive. They could do the same kind of good work wherever they live, right?, but it seems they find these camps more fulfilling and want to be a part of it. These are matters of the heart, and as they say, your heart is in the right place when you vibe well with a community.

How do you manage, I asked him. This guy was a newlywed and I found his enthusiasm in bringing the camp together was as much the same before his marriage. He said, I have the same issues as the first kind. But I plan it out well in advance. I make sure the other weekends in the month are spent with the family and in great fun. Since I have a 5-day week, I spend the Saturday at home, fixing things, taking care of household stuff and taking the family out etc. So they actually don't mind when I shoot off to the camp one Sunday a month, he said. And I motivate myself by looking at these doctors. It's purely a question how you balance your different needs, give a certain amount of time to each of them. Although it may not be the same pattern, if on an average, each one is given its rough due, then there is no problem catering to all the needs. It's not easy, in the beginning you have to stick it out, but if you are juggling balls anyway, might as well catch one of those that might help you feel good at the end of the day. One might ask: what about life after kids are born? Or will the same motivation remain 5 years later? While these are hypothetical questions, I think that once someone learns this art of balancing all the needs and recognize nourishment of the soul as one of the basic needs, then the specific situations wouldn't matter, because you know how to will, and swim your way through.

Indians of the year

I had never thought of Former President Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam as an attractive speaker, but he mentioned some nice points, in his usual simplistic style, while giving away the CNN IBN Indian of the Year 2007 awards. All those who were nominees and winners of these awards in the various categories have certain things in common, he said.

1. While still young, they had an aim in life.
2. They went on acquiring knowledge in their fields.
3. They worked hard, sweated it out for whatever they set out to do.
4. They were never cowed down by problems. They conquered their problems and went ahead.

The main winner, Mr.E Sreedharan, who headed the Delhi Metro and Konkan Railway projects, said :

1. The most important thing is to have personal integrity and honesty.
2. Achieve Professional Competence in whatever you do.
3. Finish work in time, time is money.

Mr.Arun Sarin of Vodafone was the winner in the Global Indian category and Shilpaji was one of the nominees. She was asked by the host "What it means to be a global indian". I thought she is going to say "Yoga", given her recent ventures. But she said, youknowwwwwat, "For me, it's Indian Values". Uf! Not that she sounded unconvincing, but the host made it a bit worse. While closing the question and moving on to the next nominee, he said "Values is what she says it means to be a global indian". Depending on where you give the emphasis, he sounded as if "Thats what she says, but I really don't know, Anyway let's move on." Is that why they say it's become fashionable to speak of values nowadays ?

Spade and the Rose, Buddy and the Boss

Bablu had a lot of buddies at his workplace. He and his friends were a great gang who always used to hang out together. They worked for one of the 30 companies that comprise the Sensex, so life was a poor-fit sine curve of hectic days at the workplace and chilling out at parties and vacations. All of them had been recruited on campus in the same batch and now it was almost three years since. One fine morning, Bablu was called by their boss and asked to "mentor" the others in the gang and review parts of their work from time to time, as part of these leadership grooming exercises they have from time to time, percolating succession planning right upto the grassroots level. He suddenly found there were plenty of issues to be sorted out and needed review. Efficiency needed improvement, he had "discovered". Till recently he had been one of those who needed to be "sorted out" by his boss, but now he had to sort things out. Bablu was what they call the "soft-type" guy and often wondered how to tell the guys about the areas about their work. Hey we all grew up in the same farm, man, we had our meal from the same plate, that kind of feeling. During a riverside walk, He meekly put this question to another friend of his, Munna.

Munna is a one-man university. He always answers questions at any forum he comes across. He jumps with glee to hear the phrase "to anyone who has a point of view", even though he may not have any. When he sees "to whomsoever it may concern" on an invoice envelope meant for the checkpost, he naively thinks it's for him. He uses a customized version of an old adage and believes: Preach today what you want to practise some day. The riverside dust rose to give a hazy halo to Munna as he started doling out advice by the dozen, as if Gabriel had just deliberated with him inside the cave on this very topic and the whole duniya had gathered on the sands to listen to his gyaan. It was the Republic Day, and though the chat had nothing to do with patriotism, he used a red bench on the riverside as a pedestal to get a feeling of addressing the multitudes from Red Fort.
Excerpts:

It's usually tough, but only in the beginning. After a while, the "dog eats dog" world teaches the goodie softie folks the lessons in aggression and they, after having learnt them, have to "moderate" it with the goodness they have learnt before in their "pure" times. First of all, these buddies come in 2 types. One is a set of buddies whom we start out by occasional nice interactions but later graduate to a well-formed friendship. The other is a set of buddies who have come together "just like that", here to stay only for a short while with us and go their way after the temporary phases get over. And you can try the same way of interaction with both types, though the output will be different, I'll come to that later. In these situations, they say, it's better to be the natural YOU, however good or bad that might be. And grow as a person, over a period of time. If you are irritated because others are being unfair to you, there is nothing wrong in letting people know. A certain amount of anger, well-expressed, might actually be good for the body, the mind and even for the profession, the longterm health of the workplace and quality of work. You shouldn't rock the boat, of course, but that doesn't mean you have to suppress all your feelings to the level of indignation and compromise on basic objectives at the workplace. If you are uncomfortable, you should let people know about it. If you are uncomfortable doing even that, then, well, you shouldn't and probably wait for patience to wear out a little more, (not fully tear out), so you are better off expressing it. Others may be worse off by your expressing it, but thats fine, because you would have already decided that you have reached a threshold level. If at that time, still some part of you wants to be nice and not direct, (God help !)then you can try to minimize the embarrassment by hinting or sarcasm or trying to tell in a nice way.

The only problem might be : If we straightaway mention whatever comes to our mind aggressively and harshly, it's quite possible we get wrong and we are expressing our impulses without thinking like a brakeless bell-less bicycle. Not recommended. But if there is a pattern that is repeatedly happening and if you have thought about it coolly and fair to all parties, true to your basic objective and quality of work, then you should communicate your displeasure. There is nothing wrong with this. ( I have told you this before, but again, because removing guilt requires repeated scrubbing). Don't get "worked up" and "get mean" when you are communicating, although others might react in that way. Remember, if something has started to build up that recurs and haunts you, and if you know you are being fair to both sides, then it has to be expressed. In fact, if you don't express, you might be contributing to the inefficiency in the system and if you express, you will be acting true to your basic objectives although you may not please individuals. It's good that small mistakes have to be corrected immediately, sometimes, even with big punishments so that those small mistakes do not proliferate to become big mistakes one day. Like the robber in prison who blamed his mother because she never chided him for stealing a pencil as a kid in school.

The harsh extreme stance is that, each one is there to move their muscle and do a decent amount of work for the plump pay they receive. Managers who are ruthless are usually more efficient and well-defined but not without demerits. They either get "worked up" with impulsive anger and lose out on the personal touch (care a damn even if someone is sick or mourning). They will actually be a boon in handling "real thugs" or "junk idlers" by whipping them up a bit with their outbursts and threats, but if they try the same with another employee who has average motivation already, they might be harming the existing morale. Why are you always looking over my shoulder and breathing down my neck ?. And more often than not, their ruthlessness usually works only with their subordinates, and when it comes to interacting with their superiors, they will be forced to "moderate" their aggression. Or made to learn !! After all, they can't be ruthless with their boss, they would say ! Also, these are usually good at "technical" areas of work where things are usually well-defined as X or Y. They can, for example, demonstrate and snub their superior, by showing, that other things remaining the same, an X query, written by A runs thrice as fast as a poorly written Y query written by B. And to be fair and promote better quality work, you have to agree with that. But when it comes to people-driven work like team projects and management skills, a balance between how you speak and how you get work done, matters a lot for getting further work done :) !! There may be situations, when you call spade a spade, it might fall on your neck, next time you see it, you will start calling it a rose !! :)

That said, the actual methods may vary based on the circumstances. Assume, you want to mention to your buddies that quality of work is suffering. You can do that over a cup of tea. Or mention it in the office cubicle when all are present. You can even mention it when some are present, anyway it will reach the other intended recipients !! You can mention it to whomever you think is "closest" among the lot and whom you expect to be more understanding. You can say, "Hey, Of late, these things are happening, ya. It's not proper, no?. I mean, we can chill out all the time, but work is suffering.". Or you can make a logical appeal of the consequences of inefficiency. "see folks,if we keep on postponing carelessly then issues will unnecessarily build up, and later we only have to sit and sort out each of them painfully. Suddenly one fine morning, boss will wake up from hibernation :) there will be plenty of pressure and that time not a single soul will help us. So why not, finish off then are there. Not only that, we will also get some satisfaction that some parts of work are already finished, tied up and kept aside, right ?". In higher levels of management, they do this efficiency review talk at team meetings, they have to do the harsh talk at the office and attempt to make it up at parties and get-togethers. :) But it may be, that at your junta level, your office cubicle or the coffee machine is the maximum you can think of !.

Another approach is, to act like a pukka team lead or manager while in office and be a friend or a buddy outside. This is not to say, you should lose out on all the fun in the workplace. But along with all the fun in between, you can also (do some work) make and present the task list, give instructions, review things. In the beginning, your behaviour may be confusing, people wonder are you a buddy or are you a boss. But over a period of time, people know you for "work is work and fun is fun".

Either ways, be prepared for different types of reactions (in the short term) from different kinds of people. Might quite happen, some buddies start buzzing that "you have begun to show off" or "you have started to boss around" or "the power thing has gotten to your head" or "you want to impress your boss about your leadership". It is said, Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. One can actually add here, "So say the powerless !! ". And probably the anyway corrupt. Hopefully, these should be a smaller segment. "Ignore them" would have been the easier thing to say, but in reality, it's tough to ignore an entire lot of people. Ignore their meanness, is a better way to put it. Be fair to them, whenever possible be kind and fish out their good suggestions from mean behaviour and show them you value those. That day I differed from you, that was different, but today you have a valid point. Even if it's about me. Who knows, they might even graduate upwards, depending on how you handle them and how you react to their mix of meanness and goodness.

The second kind often realise that you have become a boss and therefore, can no more be a buddy, and start interacting formally. They do their work properly and make sure work doesn't suffer but they may not chill out with you anymore and go on to find other buddies. Let go, no silly feelings, dont bid them farewell as buddies but they have a human reason to act in the way they do. Understandable, because it's actually tough to have someone as both buddy and boss. If one can achieve this, it will be great. Thats the third kind, people who know you are fair, you are friendly, but work is important so you might act in a particular unpleasant way for the sake of work and you don't keep things to heart, you don't carry emotional baggage. This produces the maximum team results along with maximum personal relationships, though it's rare to find, takes long time to build and usually involves a continuous personal growth of the manager himself.

When we are fair, and don't mean to be harsh, it's quite possible, people still find us harsh. We are not harsh, but strangely, we sound harsh to them. No one wants to be "told", so if someone "points out", the fairness fades behind and harshness hops in the front.
Remember, when you are straightforward, Good friends usually understand. Or rather, those that understand go on to become good friends. Sometimes, we also have to allow for friends to be "not understanding", if we believe they are good friends anyway, and probably their "not understanding" is one-time or short-term behaviour. Probably he got up on the wrong side of the bed which led to a fight with his wife which led to his driving on the wrong side of the road which led to... and so on.. You think you are straightforward, they might return the favour in the same straightforward currency and as good friends, we will end up being understanding!!.

Along with fairness, allowing traffic from the opposite side helps. When someone points out your inefficiencies, bring the same fairness and "technical" detachment to the table and take it by the merit of the argument. Laugh at yourself. Instead of empty defence, blame game or "you-rub-me-wrong-side-now its-my-turn", you might actually move on with a plain realisation "Oh yeah man, thats a goofup" or "my battery is down today" or "I am a joker" or "I better be careful next time" even if you don't want to "profusely" apologize. You can quip/joke by saying things like "It seems software companies give away t-shirts to people who find the best bugs, in my case, I have to buy an entire showroom". "Do unto others...." , the old adage, still has its value.

Some say, "Stop worrying about what others think of you. It's impossible to please everyone all the time". True, but it's better to keep this on the back of your mind and "moderate" it in practice to allow for team work and feedback. Because it allows you to correct yourself in case you are wrong. If you entirely stop worrying about what others think, then you never know when things "get onto your head" and will be the proverbial emperor in new clothes. You might spend crores to shoot a movie entirely on brilliant sets, have a great music score, but seriously believe the audience would surely appreciate the hero's new towel, only to lose the audience out in the first 15 minutes.

It's important to differentiate between long-term response to your leadership style and short-term response from smaller segments. Also to differentiate between responses from mature minds and responses from mean minds. And to allow the possibility for someone who is mean today to grow up and become mature tomorrow and hence the label is not for the person but for the response. That will train you to give value to a valid point from a mature mind and not fret too much about the outpourings of a mean mind. Long-term responses are a result of your effort to practise whatever you think are long-term values and your continuous effort to grow as a person and as a manager . By the time you grow up, you may not have the same team that sulked earlier to appreciate your growth now, but you would now make better teams and thereby, a better world. Amen !!