Sunday, November 10, 2013

This is not my first post on arrogance, and will certainly not be the last. Given that arrogance is something that is felt, and responded to differently by different people - accusations of arrogance will continue with most individuals till they die. Very often, arrogance will be a natural accusation for someone who goes on to transform or revolutionalise things - this is because years and decades of indifference make some institutions so cold to internal change that only a heated external force will be able to transform it.

What I have tried to do is to crystallize my thoughts and come up with a definition that is both specific and actionable. In that spirit, I define arrogance as a unwillingness to change. I am all for people with strong opinions, for I believe that it is such people that can get the world around them moving in a particular direction. However, even this revolutionary genius must, in its heart of hearts, be open to its fallibility.

When people call me arrogant (especially in a materialistic sense of the word), a part of me does feel hurt. Primarily because all the struggles that I have been through seem to be ignored when such a judgement is passed. For example, when my espousal and praise of an iPad is construed as materialism, I go back to the days when I would have to take the DTC bus every alternate evening to go to a dingy cyber cafe and start filling my US undergrad applications. Those applications bombed, not because (I believe) I did not materially have the goods, but because of my lack of knowledge and information. Today, the iPad is a ready window to a world of information. Not only does it help me keep track of news all the time (unlike my first few months at McKinsey when I didn't have the time to read papers), but also to be quick in replying to people who reach out to me, to post on Absolute Interview etc. The iPad, hence, is an enabler - as much as it is a materialistic indulgence. Yes, it hurts me when people accuse me of having turned 'elitist' or materialistic. 

However, it is extremely easy to rationalise away this discomfort. That people do not know my entire history, least of all the struggles hidden in my past, will always be true. Not even my best friends know all about how and where I came from. The reverse is also true - I do not know people well enough. Does that mean we do that judge people? No - that would certainly make the world extremely boring and indecisive. I would encourage people to be judgmental and form opinions. The only caveat I would put in is that this judgment based on half information should not be functionally important, and should not be 'arrogant' in my sense of the word - i.e. unwilling to change.

On the flipside, I am enjoying this phase of my life where I'm being 'arrogant' in the conventional sense of the word - spiteful, disdainful, impatient and extremely sarcastic. Firstly, after having spent a couple of years avoiding those traits, I find accepting them extremely refreshing. It is a new and exciting phase of life. Secondly, I find that it has made me more effective in my dealing with people. It enables me to be bold and brash, to call a spade a spade and hence to get to the point quickly. Since I know that my fundamentals are rooted in my introversion and my humble beginnings, I am sure that I don't run the risk of over-doing it. Plus, as long as I am keenly aware of this, I'm sure I won't cross the path of no-return.
Here's a final submission. I feel extremely pained by the egocentricity of people around me. Some of them who turn to our common friends in order to wash dirty linen in public, another set of people who cry and post on facebook about their (self-inflicted) pain and suffering. It is their loss of context that surprises me. I do not complain about the fact that they don't 'care' enough about me - they shouldn't care about me excessively, and for once in life I can say 'it doesn't matter' with my hand on my heart. What bothers me is that they forget that they are irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, and hence their 'pain and suffering' and 'tears' is only a fraction of an irrelevant thing. In life, they are holding on to maya, which if they hold on to any longer will cause their conscience to be put into slumber, perhaps a phase of self-pity and decay. Instead, they must unshackle themselves and experience rasa, or the manifestations of life, including its joys and sorrows. That will be the path to a happy life, I believe.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Here's an article that has been trending on facebook today. It argues how marriage is a selfless act, and that it is the spouse's happiness that should decide whether one gets married or not:


I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on marriages, but here are my two cents on the subject. I have a few points of vehement agreement - for example, that best friends should fall in love.

However, this post is to highlight my points of disagreement with what has been said, and here they are:

  • Just logically, the article fails to explain why it is important to keep the other person's happiness as the top-of-mind consideration. It addresses this when it says - "the more you love that person, the more love you receive." This is obviously a self-centered argument. Except for the altruism of making someone happy, why is it important? No answers there.
  • Sridevi says in English Vinglish that someone who is not happy in a relationship also cannot make others happy. This is very critical from my perspective. A happy soul can be a powerful beam of hope and joy for lots of people, and hence if there is a source of constant discontent in the person's life, would it not be better to cut it off? Would you rather make 1000 people less happy than make this 1 person happy? Why not be a man/woman of the world?
  • People will often say "I did this for you, I did that for you." Now that means this individual is very self-centered. Will a marriage/relationship succeed if one of the parties is such? Why should the other, less self-centered person not break this bondage, free himself/herself up and be a source of joy to people who more deserve it? 
  • I fundamentally believe that people who make a list of what all they did for a relationship aren't people worth being around. Plus, if all you did is not good enough, why should one even bother about you? Second, often times it is not what you do, but what you don't do or restrain yourself from doing that proves how much love you have. People who in their childish exuberance do what they think is in the best interest of the relationship are likely to vitiate the atmosphere so much that it is better to exit.

In conclusion, I do agree with the Walmart philosophy that one should return what one doesn't like. Relationships and societal norms are creations of human beings, there is something more fundamental that is out to be achieved by people - something that isn't dependent on these human boundaries. It is what takes you closer to that goal which is important.